4 ms·
> Speed wise it blew Bazaar and Mercurial out of the water. Benchmarks for this are hard to come by, and are for versions that are considered quite outdated no
by lake99 8y ago
> Speed wise it blew Bazaar and Mercurial out of the water.
Benchmarks for this are hard to come by, and are for versions that are considered quite outdated now. But from what little there is, there wasn't that much of a performance difference between git and hg. For example, see this: https://www.draketo.de/proj/hg-vs-git-server/test-results.html https://www.draketo.de/proj/hg-vs-git-server/test-results.ht...
- mprev 8y agoWell, sure they’re outdated because we’re talking about stuff that happened at least ten years ago. As for benchmarks, I don’t have any but there’s plenty of anecdata elsewhere in this thread that echoes the idea that git had significant speed advantages over both bzr and hg.
- CamouflagedKiwi 8y agoFair, but that misses a bunch of short-running simple operations where hg does badly; things like "print the repo root" or "print the current branch name" take several milliseconds in Git, but Mercurial needs an order of magnitude longer (see e.g. https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/OxidationPlan https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/OxidationPlan for some description of the issues there). Doesn't seem like much, but those add up, especially when they're wrapped up into other scripts that might run several of those in sequence.
- type0 8y agoThanks for the link. I was not aware that hg on windows was that painful, plus all the dll hell that makes it hard for Rustification.
- lake99 8y agoYes, there is a penalty of starting and stopping the Python interpreter every time, which is why they want to implement the front end command in Rust. For scripts, current users are better off adapting to the current hg ecosystem, and writing their scripts in Python.