subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:44:29 GMT
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