login
Header Space

 
 

Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...>
Cc: Sam Vilain <sam@...>, Git Mailing List <git@...>, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@...>, Marco Costalba <mcostalba@...>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@...>
Date: Friday, January 11, 2008 - 5:45 am

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:39:07PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:


  Using as a PoC a test that is if (size <=3D 512) instead, I get:

vanilla git:

$ du -k .git/**/*.pack
180808 .git/objects/pack/pack-7bc9f383c92cbffe366da2d2a62b67bb33a53365.pack
$ repeat 5 time git blame MAINTAINERS >|/dev/null
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,34s user 0,09s system 99% cpu 7,433 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,31s user 0,16s system 100% cpu 7,475 =
total
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,35s user 0,08s system 100% cpu 7,431 =
total
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,30s user 0,18s system 99% cpu 7,482 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,33s user 0,16s system 99% cpu 7,492 t=
otal


With a compression disabled for sizes <=3D 512:

$ du -k .git/**/*.pack
188840.git/objects/pack/pack-7bc9f383c92cbffe366da2d2a62b67bb33a53365.pack
$ repeat 5 time git blame MAINTAINERS >|/dev/null
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,06s user 0,09s system 100% cpu 7,150 =
total
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,08s user 0,13s system 99% cpu 7,209 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,07s user 0,08s system 99% cpu 7,168 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,02s user 0,15s system 99% cpu 7,177 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  7,07s user 0,13s system 99% cpu 7,243 t=
otal

Okay, the size doesn't even budge, it's not even near being fun. Though
we gain 3% of wall clock time


Let's try with a limit of 1024 then !

$ du -k .git/**/*.pack
201725	.git/objects/pack/pack-7bc9f383c92cbffe366da2d2a62b67bb33a53365.pack
$ repeat 5 time git blame MAINTAINERS >|/dev/null
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  6,93s user 0,16s system 77% cpu 9,109 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  6,88s user 0,08s system 99% cpu 6,965 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  6,84s user 0,10s system 99% cpu 6,952 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  6,86s user 0,12s system 99% cpu 6,983 t=
otal
git blame MAINTAINERS >| /dev/null  6,81s user 0,18s system 99% cpu 6,994 t=
otal


Okay, the packs grows 10%, and the blame takes 6% less time.


Okay the numbers are still not that impressive, but my patch doesn't
touches _only_ deltas, but also log comments I said, so I've redone my
tests with git log and *TADAAAA*:

vanilla git:
    repeat 5 time git log >|/dev/null
    git log >| /dev/null  2,54s user 0,12s system 99% cpu 2,660 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,52s user 0,12s system 99% cpu 2,653 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,57s user 0,07s system 99% cpu 2,637 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,56s user 0,09s system 99% cpu 2,659 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,54s user 0,10s system 99% cpu 2,660 total

with the 512 octets limit:

    $ repeat 5 time git log >|/dev/null
    git log >| /dev/null  2,10s user 0,10s system 99% cpu 2,193 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,08s user 0,10s system 99% cpu 2,189 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,06s user 0,11s system 100% cpu 2,162 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,04s user 0,13s system 100% cpu 2,172 total
    git log >| /dev/null  2,06s user 0,13s system 99% cpu 2,198 total

    That's already a 20% time reduction.


with the 1024 octets limits:
    $ repeat 5 time git log >|/dev/null
    git log >| /dev/null  1,39s user 0,12s system 99% cpu 1,512 total
    git log >| /dev/null  1,38s user 0,12s system 100% cpu 1,498 total
    git log >| /dev/null  1,41s user 0,10s system 99% cpu 1,514 total
    git log >| /dev/null  1,41s user 0,10s system 100% cpu 1,506 total
    git log >| /dev/null  1,40s user 0,10s system 100% cpu 1,504 total

    Yes that's 43% time reduction !

  As a side note, repacking with the 1024 octets limits takes 4:06 here,
and 4:26 without the limit at all, which is 8% less time. I know it
doesn't matters a lot as repack is a once time operation, but still, it
would speed up git gc --auto which is not something to neglect
completely.


I say it's worth investigating a _lot_, and the patch is that complicated:

diff --git a/builtin-pack-objects.c b/builtin-pack-objects.c
index a39cb82..f454929 100644
--- a/builtin-pack-objects.c
+++ b/builtin-pack-objects.c
@@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ static unsigned long write_object(struct sha1file *f,
                }
                /* compress the data to store and put compressed length in =
datalen */
                memset(&stream, 0, sizeof(stream));
-               deflateInit(&stream, pack_compression_level);
+               deflateInit(&stream, size > 1024 ? pack_compression_level :=
 0);
                maxsize =3D deflateBound(&stream, size);
                out =3D xmalloc(maxsize);
                /* Compress it */


--=20
=C2=B7O=C2=B7  Pierre Habouzit
=C2=B7=C2=B7O                                                madcoder@debia=
n.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Marco Costalba, (Wed Jan 9, 6:01 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Junio C Hamano, (Wed Jan 9, 6:55 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Wed Jan 9, 7:23 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Junio C Hamano, (Wed Jan 9, 7:49 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Johannes Schindelin, (Wed Jan 9, 7:31 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Wed Jan 9, 11:41 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Marco Costalba, (Thu Jan 10, 2:55 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Dana How, (Thu Jan 10, 3:34 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Marco Costalba, (Thu Jan 10, 7:45 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Johannes Schindelin, (Thu Jan 10, 8:12 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Marco Costalba, (Thu Jan 10, 8:18 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Wed Jan 9, 9:02 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Thu Jan 10, 1:02 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Pierre Habouzit, (Thu Jan 10, 5:16 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Thu Jan 10, 4:39 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Morten Welinder, (Fri Jan 11, 10:18 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Pierre Habouzit, (Fri Jan 11, 5:45 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Fri Jan 11, 10:27 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Marco Costalba, (Thu Jan 10, 5:51 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Thu Jan 10, 6:18 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Thu Jan 10, 6:01 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jan 10, 5:01 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Thu Jan 10, 5:45 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jan 10, 6:03 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Thu Jan 10, 6:28 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jan 10, 6:56 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Thu Jan 10, 9:01 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jan 10, 10:10 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Fri Jan 11, 2:29 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Jan 11, 12:03 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Fri Jan 11, 9:52 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Junio C Hamano, (Sat Jan 12, 12:46 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Fri Jan 11, 10:32 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Fri Jan 11, 11:06 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Sat Jan 12, 12:09 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Johannes Schindelin, (Sat Jan 12, 12:44 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Sam Vilain, (Fri Jan 11, 3:05 am)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Nicolas Pitre, (Thu Jan 10, 5:30 pm)
Re: Decompression speed: zip vs lzo, Pierre Habouzit, (Fri Jan 11, 4:57 am)
speck-geostationary