From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun May 31 22:24:24 2020 Received: (at 39258) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Jun 2020 02:24:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34219 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jfa7k-00072d-IH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2020 22:24:24 -0400 Received: from mugam.systemreboot.net ([139.59.75.54]:37244) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jfa7i-00072U-6n for 39258@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2020 22:24:23 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=systemreboot.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=1ha3jJgzoSHBpjspjOQU0K51VBAgR/czrJ+U+ypaXm0=; b=huoYEJ1gljE6k0mtfvGEUQwo3 FJftBEX6vkMwsugnqTVGQEIsqkPRkVVtimBYTuDtuaCb/VLaWtI6SUBIVAvC+wL5S9QnzNKE8j9dB 6TpJaGZmcIX15jRyncInG1VcSGKC/SppH6Bult85S/3rO5zl8RQsKjf1NSNbSZdMU6flI=; Received: from [192.168.2.1] (helo=steel) by systemreboot.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1jfa7c-000aFg-27; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 07:54:16 +0530 From: Arun Isaac To: zimoun Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Optimize guix search In-Reply-To: References: <20200601000030.7443-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 07:54:06 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 39258 Cc: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 39258@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain > Based on the Ludo's comments [1] on v4 which is a simple re-write of > your v3, I am finishing a vN+1.. but time flies and I am late on the > topic too. :-) > > Well, this still unsent vN+1 series has the same performance of v4 on > "guix pull" which is a key point compared to v3. Obviously, the > performance on "guix search" are equivalent on both version. This > vN+1 builds two caches -- to avoid binary breakage -- in only one go; > the consuming 'fold-modules-public-variables*' is applied only once. Interesting, I'll be waiting for your patchset. :-) > [1] http://issues.guix.gnu.org/39258#93 >> Here's a rough performance comparison. > > On cold or warm cache? On a warm cache. > So in the best case, you have the ratio old/new is 1.5; this new > version is 1.5 faster. > > Well, in the extra cache approach (v3 or v4) the ration old/new is > really higher: 3.1 faster on cold cache (which is the one I am > interested in) and 2.4 faster on warm cache. We could always have both my optimizations and your improved cache. So, that's a win on both fronts. > I will give a look to this new series and report what happens on my > laptop. But basically, I would like "guix search" under the 1.0 > second on my machine. ;-) Indeed, I would love that too! :-) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEf3MDQ/Lwnzx3v3nTLiXui2GAK7MFAl7UZscACgkQLiXui2GA K7NfHAgArXRLVjefvVH9W2bDlquAKl4xoeYClxmrU7wSF/tvo+XjrLDmI7yiXmwG kIQTPtbivZDVWoyr/ReL2MoaZSoXLdf1rLu/ta7AXlQsnWQCblBJApZ6xoh7wPv6 7SecBmC3MA540tAo5Zxy1q8e9UkzqSADevVlklW+dEyEH/BgwdNOsThUDA7DPnuN pGkz+Ef7p9gzITu9Q9j6yRz4s1EpFLMs4c5VfmnudvFVvhXgbwrxBhY2cyvOnOi5 bz0wjKb0nzezOrj838NHrSPRyunEzv1OuD1YwfG5XFC/OCttuirBZmQc015HxFH+ Mqgj1F2hxaOJ/PK2mrXq8VcSTT0W7Q== =J1FC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--