On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 18:48, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK, try this. It takes about 14 seconds on my machine on my copy of
>>> Magnus's test repository. Output looks like this:
>>
>> 14 seconds! That sound much too slow :-)
>
> /me is very sorry master. Please beat your unworthy servant only
> lightly... or alternatively, buy me a faster machine.
>
> 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.
>
> Despite the fact that I wrote this basically in response to Tom's
> complaint, I do think that it's generally useful, and will likely use
> it myself from time to time. So I think we should consider checking
> it into src/tools. Perhaps someone will feel an urge to hack on it
> further. Another useful enhancement would be to allow it to run on
+1 for putting this in src/tools.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/