Bearing in mind that these indexes are really uniqueness constraints
that just happen to also make sqlite generate indexes.
In Database.ContentIndentifier, the ContentIndentifiersKeyRemoteCidIndex
is fine as a uniqueness constraint because it contains all rows from the
table. The ContentIndentifiersCidRemoteIndex is also ok because there
can only be one key for a given (cid, uuid) combination.
In Database.Export, the new ExportTreeFileKeyIndex is the same pair as
the old ExportTreeKeyFileIndex (previously ExportTreeIndex). And
in Database.Keys.SQL, the new InodeCacheKeyIndex is the same pair as the
old KeyInodeCacheIndex.
This is a non-backwards compatable change, so not suitable for merging
w/o a annex.version bump and transition code. Not yet tested.
This improves performance of git-annex benchmark --databases
across the board by 10-25%, since eg Key roundtrips as a ByteString.
(serializeKey' produces a lazy ByteString, so there is still a
copy involved in converting it to a strict ByteString. It may be faster
to switch to using bytestring-strict-builder.)
FilePath and Key are both stored as blobs. This avoids mojibake in some
situations. It would be possible to use varchar instead, if persistent
could avoid converting that to Text, but it seems there is no good
way to do so. See doc/todo/sqlite_database_improvements.mdwn
Eliminated some ugly artifacts of using Read/Show serialization;
constructors and quoted strings are no longer stored in sqlite.
Renamed SRef to SSha to reflect that it is only ever a git sha,
not a ref name. Since it is limited to the characters in a sha,
it is not affected by mojibake, so still uses String.
Rescued from commit 11d6e2e260 which removed
db benchmarks in favor of benchmarking arbitrary git-annex commands. Which
is nice and general, but microbenchmarks are useful too.
Rescued from commit 11d6e2e260 which removed
db benchmarks in favor of benchmarking arbitrary git-annex commands. Which
is nice and general, but microbenchmarks are useful too.
Code change should be trvial, but not yet implemented. This
significantly complicated the task of documenting how git-annex works.
I'm not sure how useful the annex.gitaddtoannex confguration is after
this change; seems that if a user has an annex.largefiles they will want
it applied consistently. But the last thing I want to hear is more
complaining from users about git add doing something they don't want it
to.
There's a pretty high risk users who got used to the git add behavior
and don't have annex.largefiles configured will miss the NEWS and
complain bitterly about their suddenly bloated repositories. Oh well.
Removed outdated comments about the old behavior to avoid confusion.
I don't know if I've found all the places that griping spread to.
Added annex.gitaddtoannex configuration. Setting it to false prevents
git add from usually adding files to the annex.
(Unless the file was annexed before, or a renamed annexed file is detected.)
Currently left at true; some users are encouraging it be set to false.
Renamed unlocked files are now detected, and will always be
annexed, unless annex.largefiles disallows it.
This allows for git add's behavior to later be changed to otherwise
not annex files (whether by default or as a config option), without
worrying about the rename case.
This is not a major behavior change; annexing is still the default. But
there is one case where the behavior is changed, I think for the better:
touch f
git -c annex.largefiles=nothing add f
git add bigfile
git commit -m ...
mv bigfile f
git add f
Before, git-annex would see that f was previously not annexed,
and so the renamed bigfile content gets added to git. Now, it notices
that the inode is the one that bigfile used, and so it annexes it.
This potentially slows down git add a lot in some repositories because
of the poor performance of isInodeKnown when there are a lot of unlocked
files. Configuring annex.largefiles avoids the speed hit.
The only good thing about it is it does not require a major version bump
to improve the database. That will need to happen at some point though.
Potentially very very slow in a large repository.
Ugly use of raw sql.
