Since 'git pack-objects' supports a --path-walk option, allow passing it
through in 'git repack'. This presents interesting testing opportunities for
comparing the different repacking strategies against each other.
Add the --path-walk option to the performance tests in p5313.
For the microsoft/fluentui repo [1] checked out at a specific commit [2],
the results are very interesting:
Test this tree
------------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.40(0.47+0.04)
5313.3: thin pack size 1.2M
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.09(0.10+0.04)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 22.8K
5313.6: thin pack with --path-walk 0.08(0.06+0.02)
5313.7: thin pack size with --path-walk 20.8K
5313.8: big pack 2.16(8.43+0.23)
5313.9: big pack size 17.7M
5313.10: big pack with --full-name-hash 1.42(3.06+0.21)
5313.11: big pack size with --full-name-hash 18.0M
5313.12: big pack with --path-walk 2.21(8.39+0.24)
5313.13: big pack size with --path-walk 17.8M
5313.14: repack 98.05(662.37+2.64)
5313.15: repack size 449.1K
5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 33.95(129.44+2.63)
5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 182.9K
5313.18: repack with --path-walk 106.21(121.58+0.82)
5313.19: repack size with --path-walk 159.6K
[1] https://github.com/microsoft/fluentui
[2] e70848ebac1cd720875bccaa3026f4a9ed700e08
This repo suffers from having a lot of paths that collide in the name
hash, so examining them in groups by path leads to better deltas. Also,
in this case, the single-threaded implementation is competitive with the
full repack. This is saving time diffing files that have significant
differences from each other.
A similar, but private, repo has even more extremes in the thin packs:
Test this tree
--------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 2.39(2.91+0.10)
5313.3: thin pack size 4.5M
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.29(0.47+0.12)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 15.5K
5313.6: thin pack with --path-walk 0.35(0.31+0.04)
5313.7: thin pack size with --path-walk 14.2K
Notice, however, that while the --full-name-hash version is working
quite well in these cases for the thin pack, it does poorly for some
other standard cases, such as this test on the Linux kernel repository:
Test this tree
--------------------------------------------------------------
5313.2: thin pack 0.01(0.00+0.00)
5313.3: thin pack size 310
5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.00(0.00+0.00)
5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 1.4K
5313.6: thin pack with --path-walk 0.00(0.00+0.00)
5313.7: thin pack size with --path-walk 310
Here, the --full-name-hash option does much worse than the default name
hash, but the path-walk option does exactly as well.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
0aa782087d