On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> However, looking at Julian's binary blame algorithm, I can't help but >> wonder why this binary structure couldn't be calculated on the server >> just as well. This would save a lot of network roundtrips (5999 in my >> case :-)). Like I said, network is not an issue in our setup, but I >> appreciate that there are other environments out there. > > Calculating and doing work like this on the server would not scale well.
Oh, of course. I hadn't thought about that. That seems like a very good reason. Thinking more about this, I'm not sure that it *has* to be like that. As I commented in the other thread: I think it all depends on how efficient the algorithm is. Anyway, it's way too early to tell. We'll see ... > If you haven't, you should review some of the old threads on speeding > up blame. Dan Berlin made a lot of improvements in the SVN 1.2 > timeframe and learned a lot about what does NOT speed it up. > > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-02/0275.shtml > > You should really search around for all of the threads he commented on > to get the complete picture. I think he also provided ideas on what > more could potentially be done in the future. Such as this one that I > do not recall was ever done. > > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-09/0459.shtml > > Maybe the thread will explain why. Thanks a lot for these pointers. I'll certainly dig in to them. -- Johan
