On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>
>> Sure.  But at this point the reference to compare GIT performance
>> against might be GIT itself.  And while 1 second is really nice in this
>> case, there are some repos where it could be (and has already been
>> reported to be) much more.
>
> I'd still like to see the KDE repo, that thing went quiet after it was
> supposed to hit sneaker-net..
>
> If it was 30 seconds before to do a "git log" for some individual file,
> after the recent optimizations it should hopefully be down to 10. And I
> agree that I might be more motivated to try to get it down further if I
> could just find a repository where it's that much.

In my test repository (which emulates a real repository in terms of 
approximate size in terms of commits, branches and tags) "git log f12000" 
takes about 15m (using 1.5.0.4).  After applying patches 1/2 and 2/2 on 
top of master I get ~3m50s.  With 3/2 as well it goes down a bit more to 
~3m20s.

I've attached the script that generated the repository in case you feel 
the urge to try some move time shaving exercises ... ;)

(This is a rather unrealistic repository consisting of a long series of 
commits of new binary files, but I don't have access to the repository 
that is being approximated until I get back to work on Monday ...)

-- 
Julian

  ---
That must be wonderful: I don't understand it at all.
 		-- Moliere