Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From: Matt Mackall
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 02:43:25 EST

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:40:31AM -0400, Sean wrote:
> > - no way to do efficient delta storage
> This has been discussed. It is a recognized and accepted design
> trade-off. Disk is cheap.

This trade-off FAILS, as my benchmarks against Mercurial have shown.
It trades 10x disk space for maybe 10% performance relative to my
approach. Meanwhile, it makes a bunch of other things hard, namely the
ones I've listed. Yes, you can hack around them, but the back end will
still be bloated.

> Your concearns are about performance rather than real limitations and it's
> just too damn early in the development process for that. Frankly it's
> amazing how good git is considering its age; it's already _way_ faster and
> easier to use than bk ever was for my use.

Mercurial is even younger (Linus had a few days' head start, not to
mention a bunch of help), and it is already as fast as git, relatively
easy to use, much simpler, and much more space and bandwidth

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at