Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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.
>
> I'm pretty sure that with such an option, you'd be down to sub-second speed.
I assumed you would say git would produce the results before we asked
for them. ;-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
