Comment 15 for bug 97715

Karl Fogel wrote:
> Some results:
>
> [I just realized that everything below is with 1.9 format, because
> that's what the repository I'm testing uses. I should retry with
> --1.12-preview, right? Would that make a big difference?]

1.12-preview will make no difference at all. That format is a small
tweak to what the working tree permits. The speed issues here are
related to the repository format.

> ### lisp/ is a subdir with lots of changes under it, let's try that:
> $ time bzr log lisp > lisp-log.out
> ### wait... wait... wait... feels like long time... ###
>
> Hmmm. I opened up lisp-log.out and looked at the tail of the file. It
> is not hung -- new changes do appear -- but it's going pretty slowly.

Right. It's going as fast I can make it until the next repository format
lands in coming months. As you suspected, there's no difference in
performance between "log -v DIR" and "log DIR" as I need the partial
deltas anyhow to determine whether to include a revision or not. OTOH,
"log -v DIR" will be faster than "log -v --all-files DIR" and that
should be faster than "log -v".

> As far as correctness goes, it's passing all my tests so far. I have
> some old 'bzr log -v' for the same tree sitting around. It only goes to
> about November 2002 (I had to kill the process eventually), but checking
> those two ranges against each other in the old and new logs doesn't
> raise any problems. They're different, obviously, since the second one
> was on a subdir, but they're different in the expected ways.

Thanks for the testing. Sounds like it's working, just not fast enough.
That's the best I can offer right now, sorry.

Ian C.