[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] speeding up usage of portage in e-file / portage file list
From:       Zac Medico <zmedico () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2020-05-24 19:37:57
Message-ID: 6848f2a9-5574-23d5-68a3-31ca5fa7b8fa () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/mixed)]


On 5/24/20 9:40 AM, Daniel Buschke wrote:
> Am 24.05.2020 um 14:10 schrieb Daniel Pielmeier:
>> Here the bash version takes around 2.9 seconds while the python version
>> takes 3.2 seconds. Excluding the portage API it takes 2.8 seconds and
>> also excluding the data query it takes 0.3 seconds. So in the python
>> version the data query takes 2.5 seconds (probably this is similar for
>> the bash version) while all the rest takes 0.7 seconds
>>
>> My initial tests showed that the bash version is a lot quicker than the
>> python version. Somehow I can not reproduce this any more. As mentioned
>> previously the data query is the most time consuming part in both the
>> bash and the python version.
> 
> Oh dear! I readded the database index for file names. Now the data query
> takes ~0.3 seconds *insert self slapping image here*
> 
> Anyway, for some strange reason I cannot reproduce the slothy behaviour
> of portage, too. I'm 100% sure the bash version took 1 second while the
> python version took 3 seconds. Strange.
> 
> @Zac: Did you add some performance optimizations in the last 30 days?
> Maybe Caching? No? Then you fixed this by pure imagination :)

No portage changes, but it looks like whatever "big difference" you've
observed was probably related to the slowest step which is the remote
data query.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]