comparison mercurial/revset.py @ 29304:5e32852fa4bd

revset: make filteredset.__nonzero__ respect the order of the filteredset

This fix allows __nonzero__ to respect the direction of iteration of the
whole filteredset. Here's the case when it matters. Imagine that we have a
very large repository and we want to execute a command like:

    $ hg log --rev '(tip:0) and user(ikostia)' --limit 1

(we want to get the latest commit by me).

Mercurial will evaluate a filteredset lazy data structure, an
instance of the filteredset class, which will know that it has to iterate
in a descending order (isdescending() will return True if called). This
means that when some code iterates over the instance of this filteredset,
the 'and user(ikostia)' condition will be first checked on the latest
revision, then on the second latest and so on, allowing Mercurial to
print matches as it founds them. However, cmdutil.getgraphlogrevs
contains the following code:

    revs = _logrevs(repo, opts)
    if not revs:
        return revset.baseset(), None, None

The "not revs" expression is evaluated by calling filteredset.__nonzero__,
which in its current implementation will try to iterate the filteredset
in ascending order until it finds a revision that matches the 'and user(..'
condition. If the condition is only true on late revisions, a lot of
useless iterations will be done. These iterations could be avoided if
__nonzero__ followed the order of the filteredset, which in my opinion
is a sensible thing to do here.

The problem gets even worse when instead of 'user(ikostia)' some more
expensive check is performed, like grepping the commit diff.


I tested this fix on a very large repo where tip is my commit and my very
first commit comes fairly late in the revision history. Results of timing
of the above command on that very large repo.

-with my fix:
real    0m1.795s
user    0m1.657s
sys     0m0.135s

-without my fix:
real    1m29.245s
user    1m28.223s
sys     0m0.929s

I understand that this is a very specific kind of problem that presents
itself very rarely, only on very big repositories and with expensive
checks and so on. But I don't see any disadvantages to this kind of fix
either.

29303:3a2357c31d2a

        if it is None:
            return None
        return lambda: self._iterfilter(it())

    def __nonzero__(self):
        fast = self.fastasc
        if fast is None:
            fast = self.fastdesc
        if fast is not None:
            it = fast()
        else:
            it = self

29304:5e32852fa4bd

        if it is None:
            return None
        return lambda: self._iterfilter(it())

    def __nonzero__(self):
        fast = None
        candidates = [self.fastasc if self.isascending() else None,
                      self.fastdesc if self.isdescending() else None,
                      self.fastasc,
                      self.fastdesc]
        for candidate in candidates:
            if candidate is not None:
                fast = candidate
                break

        if fast is not None:
            it = fast()
        else:
            it = self