With my patch, the entire benchmark runs about 4% faster. I think my patch is a win. Thanks Cheuksan Edward Wang <div>On 10/31/06, Martin Pool <<a href="mailto:mbp@canonical.com">mbp@canonical.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On 30/10/2006, at 22:05 , Cheuksan Edward Wang wrote: > On 10/30/06, Martin Pool <<a href="mailto:mbp@canonical.com">mbp@canonical.com</a>> wrote: On 29 Oct 2006, > Cheuksan Edward Wang <<a href="mailto:wang02139@gmail.com">wang02139@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > > > > Replace python's difflib by patiencediff because the worst case > > performance is cubic for difflib (get_matching_blocks) and people > committing > > large data > > files are often hurt by this. The worst case performance of > patience is > > quadratic. Fix bug 65714. > > > > If there is an easy way to run benchmarks, can someone tell me > how to run them? > > I want to see the change in commit time and size of the knits. > > As Aaron said, you can do 'bzr selftest --benchmark'.  This doesn't > report on the *size* of the knits at the moment (perhaps it should), > but only on the runtime.  If you could please run that with and > without > then we can merge this. > > Sure. I'll do that tonight since it takes a long time to run the > benchmarks. If you merge the most recent bzr.dev it should be substantially faster. -- Martin </blockquote></div>