diff options
author | Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> | 2021-02-14 07:51:48 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | 2021-02-15 18:02:16 -0800 |
commit | da09f651277a982daa28227a13cd48d15b7245e1 (patch) | |
tree | 973ef7facb98483a021e37eb45fce872515f25f4 /t/perf/p0100-globbing.sh | |
parent | diffcore-rename: compute basenames of source and dest candidates (diff) | |
download | tgif-da09f651277a982daa28227a13cd48d15b7245e1.tar.xz |
diffcore-rename: complete find_basename_matches()
It is not uncommon in real world repositories for the majority of file
renames to not change the basename of the file; i.e. most "renames" are
just a move of files into different directories. We can make use of
this to avoid comparing all rename source candidates with all rename
destination candidates, by first comparing sources to destinations with
the same basenames. If two files with the same basename are
sufficiently similar, we record the rename; if not, we include those
files in the more exhaustive matrix comparison.
This means we are adding a set of preliminary additional comparisons,
but for each file we only compare it with at most one other file. For
example, if there was a include/media/device.h that was deleted and a
src/module/media/device.h that was added, and there are no other
device.h files in the remaining sets of added and deleted files after
exact rename detection, then these two files would be compared in the
preliminary step.
This commit does not yet actually employ this new optimization, it
merely adds a function which can be used for this purpose. The next
commit will do the necessary plumbing to make use of it.
Note that this optimization might give us different results than without
the optimization, because it's possible that despite files with the same
basename being sufficiently similar to be considered a rename, there's
an even better match between files without the same basename. I think
that is okay for four reasons: (1) it's easy to explain to the users
what happened if it does ever occur (or even for them to intuitively
figure out), (2) as the next patch will show it provides such a large
performance boost that it's worth the tradeoff, and (3) it's somewhat
unlikely that despite having unique matching basenames that other files
serve as better matches. Reason (4) takes a full paragraph to
explain...
If the previous three reasons aren't enough, consider what rename
detection already does. Break detection is not the default, meaning
that if files have the same _fullname_, then they are considered related
even if they are 0% similar. In fact, in such a case, we don't even
bother comparing the files to see if they are similar let alone
comparing them to all other files to see what they are most similar to.
Basically, we override content similarity based on sufficient filename
similarity. Without the filename similarity (currently implemented as
an exact match of filename), we swing the pendulum the opposite
direction and say that filename similarity is irrelevant and compare a
full N x M matrix of sources and destinations to find out which have the
most similar contents. This optimization just adds another form of
filename similarity comparison, but augments it with a file content
similarity check as well. Basically, if two files have the same
basename and are sufficiently similar to be considered a rename, mark
them as such without comparing the two to all other rename candidates.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Diffstat (limited to 't/perf/p0100-globbing.sh')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions