t/perf: add tests for pack bitmaps
authorJeff King <peff@peff.net>
Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:00:42 +0000 (09:00 -0500)
committerJunio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Mon, 30 Dec 2013 20:19:23 +0000 (12:19 -0800)
This adds a few basic perf tests for the pack bitmap code to
show off its improvements. The tests are:

1. How long does it take to do a repack (it gets slower
with bitmaps, since we have to do extra work)?

2. How long does it take to do a clone (it gets faster
with bitmaps)?

3. How does a small fetch perform when we've just
repacked?

4. How does a clone perform when we haven't repacked since
a week of pushes?

Here are results against linux.git:

Test origin/master this tree
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5310.2: repack to disk 33.64(32.64+2.04) 67.67(66.75+1.84) +101.2%
5310.3: simulated clone 30.49(29.47+2.05) 1.20(1.10+0.10) -96.1%
5310.4: simulated fetch 3.49(6.79+0.06) 5.57(22.35+0.07) +59.6%
5310.6: partial bitmap 36.70(43.87+1.81) 8.18(21.92+0.73) -77.7%

You can see that we do take longer to repack, but we do way
better for further clones. A small fetch performs a bit
worse, as we spend way more time on delta compression (note
the heavy user CPU time, as we have 8 threads) due to the
lack of name hashes for the bitmapped objects.

The final test shows how the bitmaps degrade over time
between packs. There's still a significant speedup over the
non-bitmap case, but we don't do quite as well (we have to
spend time accessing the "new" objects the old fashioned
way, including delta compression).

Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
No differences found