3 ms·

It seems I cannot post a performance comparison without people asking about disk caches. :) First of all, if I just cloned the repos, they should be in disk c

by jlebar 10y ago

It seems I cannot post a performance comparison without people asking about disk caches. :) First of all, if I just cloned the repos, they should be in disk cache. My machine has 64GB of RAM. Second of all, if they're not in disk cache, what on earth is hg doing that it takes 16 seconds to read them all in? Eigen is not that big, and I have a fast SSD. Third of all, you can run the tests yourself -- I gave you the exact commands to try. "I tried it and my results are X" is a much better contribution to the discussion. Fourth of all, yes, I ran the benchmarks multiple times in a row to check whether disk cache was at play. It was not. :)

witty_username 10y ago
> It seems I cannot post a performance comparison without people asking about disk caches. :) Sorry, the speedup was very great so it almost seemed like something else was causing it. Thanks for the benchmarks. > Third of all, you can run the tests yourself -- I gave you the exact commands to try. "I tried it and my results are X" is a much better contribution to the discussion. That's true; I'm lazy. Actually, I was thinking more of the disk cache of loading hg, not the repo (Python programs tend to have a great speedup through the disk cache).