subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:46:19 GMT
Perhaps xpost this to dev@ at some point :)

Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 18:44:29 +0000:
> Stefan Sperling <stsp@elego.de> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children
> >> notification used by 1.6.  I wonder if that notification order is
> >> important?
> >
> > See r1196191.
> > It should preserve the 1.6.x order (via svn_path_compare_paths()).
> >
> >> A patch that we could commit without affecting the order is:
> >> 
> >> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql	(revision 1196106)
> >> +++ subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql	(working copy)
> >> @@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@
> >>  CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE delete_list (
> >>  /* ### we should put the wc_id in here in case a delete spans multiple
> >>     ### working copies. queries, etc will need to be adjusted.  */
> >> -   local_relpath TEXT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL
> >> +   local_relpath TEXT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL UNIQUE
> >>     )
> >
> > Interesting. Can you explain why this doesn't affect order?
> 
> Because I retained ORDER BY in the select statement.
> 
> > I guess this works because there is only one column in the table?
> > Do UNIQUE columns happen to be inserted, or selected, in sorted order?
> 
> UNIQUE simple means that an index is created so the ORDER BY is fast.
> 
> -- 
> Philip

Mime
View raw message