followup and add link
This commit is contained in:
parent
a496ab602d
commit
424b1912d6
2 changed files with 25 additions and 3 deletions
|
@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
|
||||||
* [[metadata]] for views
|
* [[metadata]] for views
|
||||||
* [[todo/cache_key_info]]
|
* [[todo/cache_key_info]]
|
||||||
* [[bugs/indeterminite_preferred_content_state_for_duplicated_file]]
|
* [[bugs/indeterminite_preferred_content_state_for_duplicated_file]]
|
||||||
|
* [[todo/speed_up_git_annex_sync_--content_--all]]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
What do all these have in common? They could all be improved by
|
What do all these have in common? They could all be improved by
|
||||||
using some kind of database to locally store the information in an
|
using some kind of database to locally store the information in an
|
||||||
|
@ -11,9 +12,6 @@ generated and updated by looking at the git repository.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
* Metadata can be updated by looking at the git-annex branch,
|
* Metadata can be updated by looking at the git-annex branch,
|
||||||
either its current state, or the diff between the old and new versions
|
either its current state, or the diff between the old and new versions
|
||||||
* Direct mode mappings can be updated by looking at the current branch,
|
|
||||||
to see which files map to which key. Or the diff between the old
|
|
||||||
and new versions of the branch.
|
|
||||||
* Incremental fsck information is not stored in git, but can be
|
* Incremental fsck information is not stored in git, but can be
|
||||||
"regenerated" by running fsck again.
|
"regenerated" by running fsck again.
|
||||||
(Perhaps doesn't quite fit, but let it slide..)
|
(Perhaps doesn't quite fit, but let it slide..)
|
||||||
|
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||||
|
[[!comment format=mdwn
|
||||||
|
username="joey"
|
||||||
|
subject="""comment 4"""
|
||||||
|
date="2020-07-01T16:13:23Z"
|
||||||
|
content="""
|
||||||
|
It's 80s in my big repo. But of course it would also have to be read back
|
||||||
|
in and parsed, so seems it would take 160s or so. (It's going to be a dozen
|
||||||
|
or so gb of data anywhere the speed of git-annex sync --all is a problem.)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Cross-referencing it with `git ls-tree -r git-annex` to get filenames
|
||||||
|
would mean git-annex would take more memory the more keys are stored in it.
|
||||||
|
Which is something I have been careful to avoid.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
An sqlite database could surely be faster, especially if it's designed so
|
||||||
|
it can be queried for things like "all keys in repo A that are not in repo
|
||||||
|
B". But a sqlite database shouldn't only benefit --all, so it also needs to
|
||||||
|
be able to do queries like "all keys that have files in HEAD, that are in
|
||||||
|
repo A and not in repo B". With that, `git annex get` etc could also get
|
||||||
|
faster.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Anyway, it seems like --all is not really the problem for you; I guess
|
||||||
|
you would see similar runtime if you ran git-annex sync --content with the
|
||||||
|
larger of your two branches checked out than you do with --all.
|
||||||
|
"""]]
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue