Changes between Version 48 and Version 49 of DarcsEvaluation


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 26, 2008 1:32:36 PM (6 years ago)
Author:
batterseapower
Comment:

Benchmark figures

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • DarcsEvaluation

    v48 v49  
    504504 
    505505To be able to use all the commands in the example above, you should create a .hgrc file in your home directory, looking something like this: 
     506 
     507 
     508 
    506509{{{ 
    507510[extensions] 
     
    583586 * Cherry-picking isn't very "native" to the data model. Support for this is very poor. 
    584587 * UI is rather different from darcs (which current contributors are used to). 
     588 
     589=== Benchmarks === 
     590 
     591These benchmark figures were obtained with a warm disk cache on a clean tree, using OS X 10.5: 
     592 
     593||     ||Annotate||Log   ||Status||Clone   || 
     594||Git  ||0.936s  ||0.523s||0.030s||0.580s  || 
     595||Hg   ||0.230s  ||3.772s||0.178s||9.455s  || 
     596||Bzr  ||2.131s  ||7.278s||0.312s||49.788s || 
     597||Darcs||47.080s*||2.115s||0.053s||28.276**|| 
     598 
     599Footnotes: 
     600 
     601* {{{darcs annotate}}} fails with {{{Stack space overflow: current size 8388608 bytes.}}}, so you don't get an answer 
     602 
     603** {{{darcs get}}} fails with {{{Unapplicable patch}}} due to the case-insensitivity of HFS+, so you don't get a clone 
     604 
     605The Bzr clone time is high because it does an actual copy rather than just using hard links, by design. However, even on the other commands it seems to be about twice as slow as Hg, which is on average somewhat slower than Git. 
     606 
     607Note that this is a very limited benchmark: it doesn't even test merging / pulling or the cost of cloning over a network. 
    585608 
    586609== Eliminated alternatives ==