Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > It should get a bit faster if we reduce the number of branches it
> > examines, which I assume is something we can do once we desupport 7.4
> > and 8.0. We could also add a --since argument which would doubtless
> > speed things up a lot, by truncating the history to, say, the last N
> > years. Also, it could possibly be rewritten to be faster still if it
> > started N simultaneous copies of git log simultaneously instead of in
> > sequence, and processed them incrementally rather than throwing them
> > into a giant hash table, which would also probably cut down memory
> > usage quite a bit. However, I'm not really inclined to spend a lot of
> > time on it unless it's actually bugging Tom.
>
> FWIW, I would find a --since option useful (since I use the equivalent
> option of cvs2cl), but those other refinements don't seem of interest.
> 14 seconds is already an order of magnitude or two faster than cvs2cl.
Yes, my operation on a year's worth of logs can take a few minutes.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +