Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage performance dropped considerably

[Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>]

On 03/02/2014 16:04, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> 
> On Jan 28, 2014 5:57 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@digimed.co.uk
> <mailto:neil@digimed.co.uk>> 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.
>>
> 
> I was thinking: is it feasible, to "precalculate" the dependency tree?
> Or, at least "preprocess" all the sane (and insane) dependencies to help
> portage?


I thought that's what the portage cache does, as far as it can.

True, the cache reflects the state of the tree and not the parts of the
tree a given machine is using, so how big a diff does that give? And
don't forget overlays - they can slow things down immensely as more
often than not there's no cache for them unless the user knows to do it
manually.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com