From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D3F431FBC for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:24:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.305 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.305 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.306, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mjf1vcrwLqSt for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from TX2EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (tx2ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.14]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC54431FAE for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail141-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.236) by TX2EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.9.40.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:24:35 +0000 Received: from mail141-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail141-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172A5B28362; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:24:35 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -13 X-BigFish: VPS-13(zz1432R98dNzz1202hzzz32i6bh43j61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 Received: from mail141-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail141-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1266434668663581_22354; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:24:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.253]) by mail141-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16277A8176; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:24:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ausb3extmailp01.amd.com (163.181.251.8) by TX2EHSMHS010.bigfish.com (10.9.99.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.482.39; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:24:10 +0000 Received: from ausb3twp02.amd.com ([163.181.250.38]) by ausb3extmailp01.amd.com (Switch-3.2.7/Switch-3.2.7) with ESMTP id o1HJQdZe022875; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:26:42 -0600 X-WSS-ID: 0KY0380-02-9U3-02 X-M-MSG: Received: from sausexhtp02.amd.com (sausexhtp02.amd.com [163.181.3.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ausb3twp02.amd.com (Tumbleweed MailGate 3.7.2) with ESMTP id 2AA04C89D8; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:24:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from optimon.amd.com (163.181.34.104) by sausexhtp02.amd.com (163.181.3.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.234.1; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:24:05 -0600 Received: from mhdc-ns01.amd.com (mhdc-ns01.amd.com [165.204.35.147]) by optimon.amd.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o1HJO5sq020759; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:24:05 -0600 Received: from mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com (mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com [165.204.144.108]) by mhdc-ns01.amd.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1HJNnAp029471; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:23:49 -0700 (MST) Received: (from manderso@localhost) by mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id o1HJNmkj021662; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:23:48 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com: manderso set sender to MarkR.Anderson@amd.com using -f From: Mark Anderson To: Ben Gamari , notmuch In-Reply-To: <1266418124-sup-6308@ben-laptop> References: <20100215002914.GA22402@flamingspork.com> <20100217012101.GD8249@lapse.rw.madduck.net> <1266418124-sup-6308@ben-laptop> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:23:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3wd3a0z7jjv.fsf@mhdcelk-nx01.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87.1, clamav-milter version 0.87 on optimon.amd.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Reverse-DNS: unknown Subject: Re: Mail in git X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:24:36 -0000 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:03:36 -0500, Ben Gamari wrote: > > notmuch would then only search and provide the hash ID(s); tags > > would be a function of storage. > > > > Is it possible to find out all trees that reference a given object > > with Git in constant or sub-linear time? > > > I don't believe so. I think this is one of the reasons why git gc is so > expensive. But if we have notmuch as a cache of the tags, then don't we already know the tree objects that need updating? Yes, we would probably need some consistency checks for when things don't work as planned, but in the common case we ought to always know. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding these tree objects, and you're suggesting that we don't even tell notmuch about them. -Mark Just poking my nose where it don't belong, since 1984.