You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi - looking at GitHashForFiles, I wonder why we want to use this method of spawning a process and letting git calculate the hashes for these files. Perhaps git stores some of this information internally so it doesn't need to be recalculated? Still not sure the overhead is worth it.
For example, in my test project with a large globalDependencies set (which may be a common transitory scenario for a large monorepo as it transitions to be more cacheable), I have benchmarked:
GitHashForFiles ~7seconds
But replacing it with the git-like hashing you have already built
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Hi - looking at
GitHashForFiles
, I wonder why we want to use this method of spawning a process and letting git calculate the hashes for these files. Perhaps git stores some of this information internally so it doesn't need to be recalculated? Still not sure the overhead is worth it.For example, in my test project with a large
globalDependencies
set (which may be a common transitory scenario for a large monorepo as it transitions to be more cacheable), I have benchmarked:GitHashForFiles
~7secondsBut replacing it with the git-like hashing you have already built
GitHashForFiles2
~.6secondsBeta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions