Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:23 -0500

I was wondering a bit about the reports that SVN blame is slow, so I did a bit of an experiment.


[Maksim@nest khtml]$ time cvs ann khtml_part.cpp > /dev/null

Annotations for khtml_part.cpp
0.04user 0.00system 0:02.93elapsed 1%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+470minor)pagefaults 0swaps


[Maksim@nest khtml]$ time svn blame khtml_part.cpp  > /dev/null
4.73user 3.30system 6:17.41elapsed 2%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (21major+4577minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Now, khtml_part.cpp is atypical with its 1019 revisions, but other files have more (e.g. konq_mainwindow.cc has 1407). And while more typical things like 100-commit files take more reasonable 40 seconds with SVN, the comparison with 2 seconds it takes CVS does show that SVN isn't quite there yet. Now, this stuff is being worked on. But I think people should be aware of stuff like this when they say newer is better.
Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:23 -0500