You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

SimilarityRenameDetector.java 11KB

Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
Implement similarity based rename detection Content similarity based rename detection is performed only after a linear time detection is performed using exact content match on the ObjectIds. Any names which were paired up during that exact match phase are excluded from the inexact similarity based rename, which reduces the space that must be considered. During rename detection two entries cannot be marked as a rename if they are different types of files. This prevents a symlink from being renamed to a regular file, even if their blob content appears to be similar, or is identical. Efficiently comparing two files is performed by building up two hash indexes and hashing lines or short blocks from each file, counting the number of bytes that each line or block represents. Instead of using a standard java.util.HashMap, we use a custom open hashing scheme similiar to what we use in ObjecIdSubclassMap. This permits us to have a very light-weight hash, with very little memory overhead per cell stored. As we only need two ints per record in the map (line/block key and number of bytes), we collapse them into a single long inside of a long array, making very efficient use of available memory when we create the index table. We only need object headers for the index structure itself, and the index table, but not per-cell. This offers a massive space savings over using java.util.HashMap. The score calculation is done by approximating how many bytes are the same between the two inputs (which for a delta would be how much is copied from the base into the result). The score is derived by dividing the approximate number of bytes in common into the length of the larger of the two input files. Right now the SimilarityIndex table should average about 1/2 full, which means we waste about 50% of our memory on empty entries after we are done indexing a file and sort the table's contents. If memory becomes an issue we could discard the table and copy all records over to a new array that is properly sized. Building the index requires O(M + N log N) time, where M is the size of the input file in bytes, and N is the number of unique lines/blocks in the file. The N log N time constraint comes from the sort of the index table that is necessary to perform linear time matching against another SimilarityIndex created for a different file. To actually perform the rename detection, a SxD matrix is created, placing the sources (aka deletions) along one dimension and the destinations (aka additions) along the other. A simple O(S x D) loop examines every cell in this matrix. A SimilarityIndex is built along the row and reused for each column compare along that row, avoiding the costly index rebuild at the row level. A future improvement would be to load a smaller square matrix into SimilarityIndexes and process everything in that sub-matrix before discarding the column dimension and moving down to the next sub-matrix block along that same grid of rows. An optional ProgressMonitor is permitted to be passed in, allowing applications to see the progress of the detector as it works through the matrix cells. This provides some indication of current status for very long running renames. The default line/block hash function used by the SimilarityIndex may not be optimal, and may produce too many collisions. It is borrowed from RawText's hash, which is used to quickly skip out of a longer equality test if two lines have different hash functions. We may need to refine this hash in the future, in order to minimize the number of collisions we get on common source files. Based on a handful of test commits in JGit (especially my own recent rename repository refactoring series), this rename detector produces output that is very close to C Git. The content similarity scores are sometimes off by 1%, which is most probably caused by our SimilarityIndex type using a different hash function than C Git uses when it computes the delta size between any two objects in the rename matrix. Bug: 318504 Change-Id: I11dff969e8a2e4cf252636d857d2113053bdd9dc Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
14 years ago
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382
  1. /*
  2. * Copyright (C) 2010, Google Inc.
  3. * and other copyright owners as documented in the project's IP log.
  4. *
  5. * This program and the accompanying materials are made available
  6. * under the terms of the Eclipse Distribution License v1.0 which
  7. * accompanies this distribution, is reproduced below, and is
  8. * available at http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php
  9. *
  10. * All rights reserved.
  11. *
  12. * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
  13. * without modification, are permitted provided that the following
  14. * conditions are met:
  15. *
  16. * - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  17. * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  18. *
  19. * - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
  20. * copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
  21. * disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided
  22. * with the distribution.
  23. *
  24. * - Neither the name of the Eclipse Foundation, Inc. nor the
  25. * names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote
  26. * products derived from this software without specific prior
  27. * written permission.
  28. *
  29. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
  30. * CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,
  31. * INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
  32. * OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
  33. * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
  34. * CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
  35. * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
  36. * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
  37. * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
  38. * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
  39. * STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
  40. * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF
  41. * ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
  42. */
  43. package org.eclipse.jgit.diff;
  44. import java.io.IOException;
  45. import java.util.ArrayList;
  46. import java.util.Arrays;
  47. import java.util.List;
  48. import org.eclipse.jgit.JGitText;
  49. import org.eclipse.jgit.diff.DiffEntry.ChangeType;
  50. import org.eclipse.jgit.lib.Constants;
  51. import org.eclipse.jgit.lib.FileMode;
  52. import org.eclipse.jgit.lib.NullProgressMonitor;
  53. import org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ObjectId;
  54. import org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ObjectReader;
  55. import org.eclipse.jgit.lib.ProgressMonitor;
  56. class SimilarityRenameDetector {
  57. /**
  58. * Number of bits we need to express an index into src or dst list.
  59. * <p>
  60. * This must be 28, giving us a limit of 2^28 entries in either list, which
  61. * is an insane limit of 536,870,912 file names being considered in a single
  62. * rename pass. The other 8 bits are used to store the score, while staying
  63. * under 127 so the long doesn't go negative.
  64. */
  65. private static final int BITS_PER_INDEX = 28;
  66. private static final int INDEX_MASK = (1 << BITS_PER_INDEX) - 1;
  67. private static final int SCORE_SHIFT = 2 * BITS_PER_INDEX;
  68. private ObjectReader reader;
  69. /**
  70. * All sources to consider for copies or renames.
  71. * <p>
  72. * A source is typically a {@link ChangeType#DELETE} change, but could be
  73. * another type when trying to perform copy detection concurrently with
  74. * rename detection.
  75. */
  76. private List<DiffEntry> srcs;
  77. /**
  78. * All destinations to consider looking for a rename.
  79. * <p>
  80. * A destination is typically an {@link ChangeType#ADD}, as the name has
  81. * just come into existence, and we want to discover where its initial
  82. * content came from.
  83. */
  84. private List<DiffEntry> dsts;
  85. /**
  86. * Matrix of all examined file pairs, and their scores.
  87. * <p>
  88. * The upper 8 bits of each long stores the score, but the score is bounded
  89. * to be in the range (0, 128] so that the highest bit is never set, and all
  90. * entries are therefore positive.
  91. * <p>
  92. * List indexes to an element of {@link #srcs} and {@link #dsts} are encoded
  93. * as the lower two groups of 28 bits, respectively, but the encoding is
  94. * inverted, so that 0 is expressed as {@code (1 << 28) - 1}. This sorts
  95. * lower list indices later in the matrix, giving precedence to files whose
  96. * names sort earlier in the tree.
  97. */
  98. private long[] matrix;
  99. /** Score a pair must exceed to be considered a rename. */
  100. private int renameScore = 60;
  101. private List<DiffEntry> out;
  102. SimilarityRenameDetector(ObjectReader reader, List<DiffEntry> srcs,
  103. List<DiffEntry> dsts) {
  104. this.reader = reader;
  105. this.srcs = srcs;
  106. this.dsts = dsts;
  107. }
  108. void setRenameScore(int score) {
  109. renameScore = score;
  110. }
  111. void compute(ProgressMonitor pm) throws IOException {
  112. if (pm == null)
  113. pm = NullProgressMonitor.INSTANCE;
  114. pm.beginTask(JGitText.get().renamesFindingByContent, //
  115. 2 * srcs.size() * dsts.size());
  116. int mNext = buildMatrix(pm);
  117. out = new ArrayList<DiffEntry>(Math.min(mNext, dsts.size()));
  118. // Match rename pairs on a first come, first serve basis until
  119. // we have looked at everything that is above our minimum score.
  120. //
  121. for (--mNext; mNext >= 0; mNext--) {
  122. long ent = matrix[mNext];
  123. int sIdx = srcFile(ent);
  124. int dIdx = dstFile(ent);
  125. DiffEntry s = srcs.get(sIdx);
  126. DiffEntry d = dsts.get(dIdx);
  127. if (d == null) {
  128. pm.update(1);
  129. continue; // was already matched earlier
  130. }
  131. ChangeType type;
  132. if (s.changeType == ChangeType.DELETE) {
  133. // First use of this source file. Tag it as a rename so we
  134. // later know it is already been used as a rename, other
  135. // matches (if any) will claim themselves as copies instead.
  136. //
  137. s.changeType = ChangeType.RENAME;
  138. type = ChangeType.RENAME;
  139. } else {
  140. type = ChangeType.COPY;
  141. }
  142. out.add(DiffEntry.pair(type, s, d, score(ent)));
  143. dsts.set(dIdx, null); // Claim the destination was matched.
  144. pm.update(1);
  145. }
  146. srcs = compactSrcList(srcs);
  147. dsts = compactDstList(dsts);
  148. pm.endTask();
  149. }
  150. List<DiffEntry> getMatches() {
  151. return out;
  152. }
  153. List<DiffEntry> getLeftOverSources() {
  154. return srcs;
  155. }
  156. List<DiffEntry> getLeftOverDestinations() {
  157. return dsts;
  158. }
  159. private static List<DiffEntry> compactSrcList(List<DiffEntry> in) {
  160. ArrayList<DiffEntry> r = new ArrayList<DiffEntry>(in.size());
  161. for (DiffEntry e : in) {
  162. if (e.changeType == ChangeType.DELETE)
  163. r.add(e);
  164. }
  165. return r;
  166. }
  167. private static List<DiffEntry> compactDstList(List<DiffEntry> in) {
  168. ArrayList<DiffEntry> r = new ArrayList<DiffEntry>(in.size());
  169. for (DiffEntry e : in) {
  170. if (e != null)
  171. r.add(e);
  172. }
  173. return r;
  174. }
  175. private int buildMatrix(ProgressMonitor pm) throws IOException {
  176. // Allocate for the worst-case scenario where every pair has a
  177. // score that we need to consider. We might not need that many.
  178. //
  179. matrix = new long[srcs.size() * dsts.size()];
  180. long[] srcSizes = new long[srcs.size()];
  181. long[] dstSizes = new long[dsts.size()];
  182. // Init the size arrays to some value that indicates that we haven't
  183. // calculated the size yet. Since sizes cannot be negative, -1 will work
  184. Arrays.fill(srcSizes, -1);
  185. Arrays.fill(dstSizes, -1);
  186. // Consider each pair of files, if the score is above the minimum
  187. // threshold we need record that scoring in the matrix so we can
  188. // later find the best matches.
  189. //
  190. int mNext = 0;
  191. for (int srcIdx = 0; srcIdx < srcs.size(); srcIdx++) {
  192. DiffEntry srcEnt = srcs.get(srcIdx);
  193. if (!isFile(srcEnt.oldMode)) {
  194. pm.update(dsts.size());
  195. continue;
  196. }
  197. SimilarityIndex s = hash(srcEnt.oldId.toObjectId());
  198. for (int dstIdx = 0; dstIdx < dsts.size(); dstIdx++) {
  199. DiffEntry dstEnt = dsts.get(dstIdx);
  200. if (!isFile(dstEnt.newMode)) {
  201. pm.update(1);
  202. continue;
  203. }
  204. if (!RenameDetector.sameType(srcEnt.oldMode, dstEnt.newMode)) {
  205. pm.update(1);
  206. continue;
  207. }
  208. long srcSize = srcSizes[srcIdx];
  209. if (srcSize < 0) {
  210. srcSize = size(srcEnt.oldId.toObjectId());
  211. srcSizes[srcIdx] = srcSize;
  212. }
  213. long dstSize = dstSizes[dstIdx];
  214. if (dstSize < 0) {
  215. dstSize = size(dstEnt.newId.toObjectId());
  216. dstSizes[dstIdx] = dstSize;
  217. }
  218. long max = Math.max(srcSize, dstSize);
  219. long min = Math.min(srcSize, dstSize);
  220. if (min * 100 / max < renameScore) {
  221. // Cannot possibly match, as the file sizes are so different
  222. pm.update(1);
  223. continue;
  224. }
  225. SimilarityIndex d = hash(dstEnt.newId.toObjectId());
  226. int contentScore = s.score(d, 10000);
  227. // nameScore returns a value between 0 and 100, but we want it
  228. // to be in the same range as the content score. This allows it
  229. // to be dropped into the pretty formula for the final score.
  230. int nameScore = nameScore(srcEnt.oldPath, dstEnt.newPath) * 100;
  231. int score = (contentScore * 99 + nameScore * 1) / 10000;
  232. if (score < renameScore) {
  233. pm.update(1);
  234. continue;
  235. }
  236. matrix[mNext++] = encode(score, srcIdx, dstIdx);
  237. pm.update(1);
  238. }
  239. }
  240. // Sort everything in the range we populated, which might be the
  241. // entire matrix, or just a smaller slice if we had some bad low
  242. // scoring pairs.
  243. //
  244. Arrays.sort(matrix, 0, mNext);
  245. return mNext;
  246. }
  247. static int nameScore(String a, String b) {
  248. int aDirLen = a.lastIndexOf("/") + 1;
  249. int bDirLen = b.lastIndexOf("/") + 1;
  250. int dirMin = Math.min(aDirLen, bDirLen);
  251. int dirMax = Math.max(aDirLen, bDirLen);
  252. final int dirScoreLtr;
  253. final int dirScoreRtl;
  254. if (dirMax == 0) {
  255. dirScoreLtr = 100;
  256. dirScoreRtl = 100;
  257. } else {
  258. int dirSim = 0;
  259. for (; dirSim < dirMin; dirSim++) {
  260. if (a.charAt(dirSim) != b.charAt(dirSim))
  261. break;
  262. }
  263. dirScoreLtr = (dirSim * 100) / dirMax;
  264. if (dirScoreLtr == 100) {
  265. dirScoreRtl = 100;
  266. } else {
  267. for (dirSim = 0; dirSim < dirMin; dirSim++) {
  268. if (a.charAt(aDirLen - 1 - dirSim) != b.charAt(bDirLen - 1
  269. - dirSim))
  270. break;
  271. }
  272. dirScoreRtl = (dirSim * 100) / dirMax;
  273. }
  274. }
  275. int fileMin = Math.min(a.length() - aDirLen, b.length() - bDirLen);
  276. int fileMax = Math.max(a.length() - aDirLen, b.length() - bDirLen);
  277. int fileSim = 0;
  278. for (; fileSim < fileMin; fileSim++) {
  279. if (a.charAt(a.length() - 1 - fileSim) != b.charAt(b.length() - 1
  280. - fileSim))
  281. break;
  282. }
  283. int fileScore = (fileSim * 100) / fileMax;
  284. return (((dirScoreLtr + dirScoreRtl) * 25) + (fileScore * 50)) / 100;
  285. }
  286. private SimilarityIndex hash(ObjectId objectId) throws IOException {
  287. SimilarityIndex r = new SimilarityIndex();
  288. r.hash(reader.open(objectId));
  289. r.sort();
  290. return r;
  291. }
  292. private long size(ObjectId objectId) throws IOException {
  293. return reader.getObjectSize(objectId, Constants.OBJ_BLOB);
  294. }
  295. private static int score(long value) {
  296. return (int) (value >>> SCORE_SHIFT);
  297. }
  298. static int srcFile(long value) {
  299. return decodeFile(((int) (value >>> BITS_PER_INDEX)) & INDEX_MASK);
  300. }
  301. static int dstFile(long value) {
  302. return decodeFile(((int) value) & INDEX_MASK);
  303. }
  304. static long encode(int score, int srcIdx, int dstIdx) {
  305. return (((long) score) << SCORE_SHIFT) //
  306. | (encodeFile(srcIdx) << BITS_PER_INDEX) //
  307. | encodeFile(dstIdx);
  308. }
  309. private static long encodeFile(int idx) {
  310. // We invert the index so that the first file in the list sorts
  311. // later in the table. This permits us to break ties favoring
  312. // earlier names over later ones.
  313. //
  314. return INDEX_MASK - idx;
  315. }
  316. private static int decodeFile(int v) {
  317. return INDEX_MASK - v;
  318. }
  319. private static boolean isFile(FileMode mode) {
  320. return (mode.getBits() & FileMode.TYPE_MASK) == FileMode.TYPE_FILE;
  321. }
  322. }