Commit cf296bf
p5313: add size comparison test
As custom options are added to 'git pack-objects' and 'git repack' to
adjust how compression is done, use this new performance test script to
demonstrate their effectiveness in performance and size.
The recently-added --full-name-hash option swaps the default name-hash
algorithm with one that attempts to uniformly distribute the hashes
based on the full path name instead of the last 16 characters.
This has a dramatic effect on full repacks for repositories with many
versions of most paths. It can have a negative impact on cases such as
pushing a single change.
This can be seen by running pt5313 on the open source fluentui
repository [1]. Most commits will have this kind of output for the thin
and big pack cases, though certain commits (such as [2]) will have
problematic thin pack size for other reasons.
[1] https://github.com/microsoft/fluentui
[2] a637a06df05360ce5ff21420803f64608226a875
Checked out at the parent of [2], I see the following statistics:
Test HEAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.37(0.43+0.02)
5313.3: thin pack size 1.2M
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.06(0.09+0.02)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 20.4K
5313.6: big pack 2.01(7.73+0.23)
5313.7: big pack size 20.3M
5313.8: big pack with --full-name-hash 1.32(2.77+0.27)
5313.9: big pack size with --full-name-hash 19.9M
5313.10: shallow fetch pack 1.40(3.01+0.08)
5313.11: shallow pack size 34.4M
5313.12: shallow pack with --full-name-hash 1.08(1.25+0.14)
5313.13: shallow pack size with --full-name-hash 35.4M
5313.14: repack 90.70(672.88+2.46)
5313.15: repack size 439.6M
5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 18.53(123.41+2.53)
5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 169.7M
In this case, we see positive behaviors such as a significant shrink in
the size of the thin pack and full repack. The big pack is slightly
smaller with --full-name-hash than without. The shallow pack is slightly
larger with --full-name-hash.
In the case of the Git repository, these numbers show some of the issues
with this approach:
Test HEAD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.00(0.00+0.00)
5313.3: thin pack size 589
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.00(0.00+0.00)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 14.9K
5313.6: big pack 2.07(3.57+0.17)
5313.7: big pack size 17.6M
5313.8: big pack with --full-name-hash 2.00(3.07+0.19)
5313.9: big pack size with --full-name-hash 17.9M
5313.10: shallow fetch pack 1.41(2.23+0.06)
5313.11: shallow pack size 12.1M
5313.12: shallow pack with --full-name-hash 1.22(1.66+0.04)
5313.13: shallow pack size with --full-name-hash 12.4M
5313.14: repack 15.75(89.29+1.54)
5313.15: repack size 126.4M
5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 15.56(89.78+1.32)
5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 126.0M
The thin pack that simulates a push is much worse with --full-name-hash
in this case. The name hash values are doing a lot to assist with delta
bases, it seems. The big pack and shallow clone cases are slightly worse
with the --full-name-hash option. Only the full repack gains some
benefits in size.
The results are similar with the nodejs/node repo:
Test HEAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.01(0.01+0.00)
5313.3: thin pack size 1.6K
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.01(0.00+0.00)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 3.1K
5313.6: big pack 4.26(8.03+0.24)
5313.7: big pack size 56.0M
5313.8: big pack with --full-name-hash 4.16(6.55+0.22)
5313.9: big pack size with --full-name-hash 56.2M
5313.10: shallow fetch pack 7.67(11.80+0.29)
5313.11: shallow pack size 104.6M
5313.12: shallow pack with --full-name-hash 7.52(9.65+0.23)
5313.13: shallow pack size with --full-name-hash 105.9M
5313.14: repack 71.22(317.61+3.95)
5313.15: repack size 739.9M
5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 48.85(267.02+3.72)
5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 793.5M
The Linux kernel repository was the initial target of the default name
hash value, and its naming conventions are practically build to take the
most advantage of the default name hash values:
Test HEAD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.15(0.01+0.03)
5313.3: thin pack size 4.6K
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.03(0.02+0.01)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 6.8K
5313.6: big pack 18.51(33.74+0.95)
5313.7: big pack size 201.1M
5313.8: big pack with --full-name-hash 16.01(29.81+0.88)
5313.9: big pack size with --full-name-hash 202.1M
5313.10: shallow fetch pack 11.49(17.61+0.54)
5313.11: shallow pack size 269.2M
5313.12: shallow pack with --full-name-hash 11.24(15.25+0.56)
5313.13: shallow pack size with --full-name-hash 269.8M
5313.14: repack 1001.25(2271.06+38.86)
5313.15: repack size 2.5G
5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 625.75(1941.96+36.09)
5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 2.6G
Finally, an internal Javascript repo of moderate size shows significant
gains when repacking with --full-name-hash due to it having many name
hash collisions. However, it's worth noting that only the full repack
case has enough improvement to be worth it. But the improvements are
significant: 6.4 GB to 862 MB.
Test HEAD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.03(0.02+0.00)
5313.3: thin pack size 1.2K
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.03(0.03+0.00)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 2.6K
5313.6: big pack 2.20(3.23+0.30)
5313.7: big pack size 130.7M
5313.8: big pack with --full-name-hash 2.33(3.17+0.34)
5313.9: big pack size with --full-name-hash 131.0M
5313.10: shallow fetch pack 3.56(6.02+0.32)
5313.11: shallow pack size 44.5M
5313.12: shallow pack with --full-name-hash 2.94(3.94+0.32)
5313.13: shallow pack size with --full-name-hash 45.3M
5313.14: repack 2435.22(12523.11+23.53)
5313.15: repack size 6.4G
5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 473.25(1805.11+17.22)
5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 861.9M
These tests demonstrate that it is important to be careful about which
cases are best for using the --full-name-hash option.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>1 parent 45df457 commit cf296bf
1 file changed
+94
-0
lines changed| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| 1 | + | |
| 2 | + | |
| 3 | + | |
| 4 | + | |
| 5 | + | |
| 6 | + | |
| 7 | + | |
| 8 | + | |
| 9 | + | |
| 10 | + | |
| 11 | + | |
| 12 | + | |
| 13 | + | |
| 14 | + | |
| 15 | + | |
| 16 | + | |
| 17 | + | |
| 18 | + | |
| 19 | + | |
| 20 | + | |
| 21 | + | |
| 22 | + | |
| 23 | + | |
| 24 | + | |
| 25 | + | |
| 26 | + | |
| 27 | + | |
| 28 | + | |
| 29 | + | |
| 30 | + | |
| 31 | + | |
| 32 | + | |
| 33 | + | |
| 34 | + | |
| 35 | + | |
| 36 | + | |
| 37 | + | |
| 38 | + | |
| 39 | + | |
| 40 | + | |
| 41 | + | |
| 42 | + | |
| 43 | + | |
| 44 | + | |
| 45 | + | |
| 46 | + | |
| 47 | + | |
| 48 | + | |
| 49 | + | |
| 50 | + | |
| 51 | + | |
| 52 | + | |
| 53 | + | |
| 54 | + | |
| 55 | + | |
| 56 | + | |
| 57 | + | |
| 58 | + | |
| 59 | + | |
| 60 | + | |
| 61 | + | |
| 62 | + | |
| 63 | + | |
| 64 | + | |
| 65 | + | |
| 66 | + | |
| 67 | + | |
| 68 | + | |
| 69 | + | |
| 70 | + | |
| 71 | + | |
| 72 | + | |
| 73 | + | |
| 74 | + | |
| 75 | + | |
| 76 | + | |
| 77 | + | |
| 78 | + | |
| 79 | + | |
| 80 | + | |
| 81 | + | |
| 82 | + | |
| 83 | + | |
| 84 | + | |
| 85 | + | |
| 86 | + | |
| 87 | + | |
| 88 | + | |
| 89 | + | |
| 90 | + | |
| 91 | + | |
| 92 | + | |
| 93 | + | |
| 94 | + | |
0 commit comments