Skip searching for better indentation heuristics if we'd slide a hunk more
than its size. This is the easiest fix proposed in the analysis[1] in
response to a patch that mercurial took for xdiff to limit searching
by a constant. Using a performance test as:
#!python
open('a', 'w').write(" \n" *
1000000)
open('b', 'w').write(" \n" *
1000001)
This patch reduces the execution of "git diff --no-index a b" from
0.70s to 0.31s. However limiting the sliding to the size of the diff hunk,
which was proposed as a solution (that I found easiest to implement for
now) is not optimal for cases like
open('a', 'w').write(" \n" *
1000000)
open('b', 'w').write(" \n" *
2000000)
as then we'd still slide
1000000 times.
In addition to limiting the sliding to size of the hunk, also limit by a
constant. Choose 100 lines as the constant as that fits more than a screen,
which really means that the diff sliding is probably not providing a lot
of benefit anyway.
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/
72ac1ac2-f567-f241-41d6-
d0f83072e0b3@alum.mit.edu/
Reported-by: Jun Wu <quark@fb.com>
Analysis-by: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
*/
#define INDENT_WEIGHT 60
+/*
+ * How far do we slide a hunk at most?
+ */
+#define INDENT_HEURISTIC_MAX_SLIDING 100
+
/*
* Compute a badness score for the hypothetical split whose measurements are
* stored in m. The weight factors were determined empirically using the tools and
long shift, best_shift = -1;
struct split_score best_score;
- for (shift = earliest_end; shift <= g.end; shift++) {
+ shift = earliest_end;
+ if (g.end - groupsize - 1 > shift)
+ shift = g.end - groupsize - 1;
+ if (g.end - INDENT_HEURISTIC_MAX_SLIDING > shift)
+ shift = g.end - INDENT_HEURISTIC_MAX_SLIDING;
+ for (; shift <= g.end; shift++) {
struct split_measurement m;
struct split_score score = {0, 0};