Updated bzr vs hg vs git benchmarking results

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> Bazaar 2.0 now looks pretty hot vs Mercurial 1.3 w.r.t storage
> efficiency. I'm still collecting some results for bzr vs git. See
> http://bazaar-vcs.org/Benchmarks.
> 
> If benchmarking is your thing, please let us know how 2.0 stacks up for
> your project by blogging and linking to your post from that page. In
> particular, it would be great if:
> 
> * we had updated performance data, speeds not just sizes.
> 
> * someone added a Bazaar 2.0.0 vs Subversion 1.6 section to that page.
> 
> Ian C.
> 
> 

Just cloning a git repo is probably not a fair comparison. You should
probably run 'git repack -a -f' at least, and possibly 'git repack -a -f
- --window ?? --depth ??' (window has a greater effect IME).

I also believe Mercurial has some amount of 'restructure this content to
make it more efficient', which is fairly important to do after a
conversion. I have very little idea how it is exposed, but the python
guys said it was a "70% difference". (Interleaving history in hg is
*very* bad, because they always delta to the previous text. So if you
have two branches

  A
  |\
  B C
  | |
  D E
  | |
  F G

That can be stored as A B D F C E G or A B C D E F G. In the latter, you
will end up that every text reverts the changes from the other branch,
and then adds the changes from this branch.)

Anyway, things certainly look good. We may want to make sure we tweak
things a bit so that it can be considered a fair comparison.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrN+SEACgkQJdeBCYSNAANZFQCdFSBhNKzBIKLo9MR3CL/HrC5R
ZBkAoKuiVaEXbibnTWgofEAvo5C+PHMf
=CYT9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----