From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-153427-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF6C138A1F
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:35:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 69402E0CE7;
	Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:35:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C2E8E0BBF
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:35:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-5d821c94.pool.mediaWays.net [93.130.28.148])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: hasufell)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1769E33DA56
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 23:35:25 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <52E6ED3C.9030603@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 00:35:24 +0100
From: hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably
References: <lc36fi$ec7$1@ger.gmane.org>	<20140126162426.7a6d1f30@falcon.eroen.eu>	<52E54920.5010207@gmail.com>	<52E54E34.7080709@gentoo.org>	<52E64A27.9090105@libertytrek.org>	<52E659F1.1090508@gmail.com>	<52E665B6.9030301@gentoo.org>	<20140127214837.47278679@digimed.co.uk>	<52E6D594.1010508@gentoo.org> <20140127225700.44fb0c81@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20140127225700.44fb0c81@hactar.digimed.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 8df7a22b-3728-4b3a-ae5c-8d918d563a39
X-Archives-Hash: c8b41f845409f92f0253ee76a94d91bf

On 01/27/2014 11:57 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote:
> 
>>>> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis
>>>> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete
>>>> there.  
>>>
>>> That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different
>>> language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of
>>> work it does so much as how efficiently it does it.
> 
>> That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not
>> efficiency.
> 
> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed.
> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two
> programs do things in very different ways.
> 
> 

For people who are used to portage, paludis will be _slower_ in total,
although the dependency calculation will be more accurate.