[p4] yet again

[Dave Lewis]

well, its not that bad, but I suppose its about as much overhead as it
gets in perforce.
I believe its nearly the same overhead for a branch (without changes)
or for a client's have list.
As Gordon says, an entry for every file in the label.

Next to this, a label as an alias for a changelist number is totally
insignificant!

a changelist is much better for determining changes between two
points. A label need not
even correspond to a point in time, which makes determining the
differences between them somewhat tricky.

dave


On 5/8/07, Tetlow, Gordon <gtetlow at soe.sony.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com
> > [mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of
> > Steve M. Robbins
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:52 AM
> > To: perforce-user at perforce.com
> > Subject: [p4] yet again
> >
> > [This is my third try at sending.  Apologies if you have
> > seen this twice already.]
> >
> > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 12:01:49PM -0700, Jeff A. Bowles wrote:
> >
> > > I would use the newer label spec feature, so that you could say
> > > "the label project1_build96_Mar15 is //depot/main/... up to change
> > > 12381". It's a small amount of programming (the "Revision:" field
> > > and the "View:" section of the label spec - perhaps 10-12 lines of
> > > Unix shell script at most) and has very low database
> > storage overhead
> > > compared to using "p4 labelsync" for this situation.
> >
> > I wonder if you could expand on this a bit.
> >
> > For example, what are you referring to by "newer label spec feature"?
> > On our 2006.1 server, at least, "Revision:" doesn't appear in the
> > label spec, so I assume you must be speaking of a newer p4.
> >
> > I'm mainly curious about the comment regarding database overhead for a
> > label.  I'm new to p4 and naively a label seems like the right tool to
> > identify released code versions.  However, my boss -- who has
> > previously used p4 -- is allergic to labels and I think part of the
> > reason has to do with DB storage.  Is a label a lot of overhead?  I
> > imagine that a label is basically the same size as a changelist as
> > conceptually both have to store pairs of (filename,revision).
>
> Labels have massive overhead in the database. Basically, every file in
> the label has to have an entry in the database.
>
> -gordon
>
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
>