Since we are traveling the graph down from one head, we know we will not
encounter any filtered revisions.
Using the "unchecked" version is significantly faster.
revision: large amount; added files: large amount; rename small amount; c3b14617fbd7 9ba6ab77fd29
filelog: ! wall 3.679613 comb 3.680000 user 3.580000 sys 0.100000 (median of 3)
base: ! wall 8.884369 comb 8.880000 user 8.850000 sys 0.030000 (median of 3)
before: ! wall 4.697917 comb 4.690000 user 4.660000 sys 0.030000 (median of 3)
after: ! wall 4.681985 comb 4.680000 user 4.640000 sys 0.040000 (median of 3)
revision: large amount; added files: small amount; rename small amount; c3b14617fbd7 f650a9b140d2
filelog: ! wall 0.003357 comb 0.010000 user 0.010000 sys 0.000000 (median of 781)
base: ! wall 12.398524 comb 12.400000 user 12.330000 sys 0.070000 (median of 3)
before: ! wall 6.750832 comb 6.750000 user 6.640000 sys 0.110000 (median of 3)
after: ! wall 6.459592 comb 6.470000 user 6.390000 sys 0.080000 (median of 3)
revision: large amount; added files: large amount; rename large amount; 08ea3258278e d9fa043f30c0
filelog: ! wall 2.754687 comb 2.760000 user 2.650000 sys 0.110000 (median of 4)
base: ! wall 1.423166 comb 1.420000 user 1.400000 sys 0.020000 (median of 8)
before: ! wall 1.045916 comb 1.050000 user 1.040000 sys 0.010000 (median of 10)
after: ! wall 0.961048 comb 0.960000 user 0.940000 sys 0.020000 (median of 11)
revision: small amount; added files: large amount; rename large amount; df6f7a526b60 a83dc6a2d56f
filelog: ! wall 1.552293 comb 1.550000 user 1.510000 sys 0.040000 (median of 6
base: ! wall 0.022662 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (median of 128)
before: ! wall 0.021577 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (median of 138)
after: ! wall 0.021649 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (median of 135)
revision: small amount; added files: large amount; rename small amount; 4aa4e1f8e19a 169138063d63
filelog: ! wall 1.500983 comb 1.500000 user 1.420000 sys 0.080000 (median of 7)
base: ! wall 0.006956 comb 0.010000 user 0.010000 sys 0.000000 (median of 392)
before: ! wall 0.004329 comb 0.000000 user 0.000000 sys 0.000000 (median of 682)
after: ! wall 0.004022 comb 0.000000 user 0.000000 sys 0.000000 (median of 735)
revision: small amount; added files: small amount; rename small amount; 4bc173b045a6 964879152e2e
filelog: ! wall 0.011745 comb 0.020000 user 0.020000 sys 0.000000 (median of 250)
base: ! wall 0.000156 comb 0.000000 user 0.000000 sys 0.000000 (median of 17180)
before: ! wall 0.000105 comb 0.000000 user 0.000000 sys 0.000000 (median of 25689)
after: ! wall 0.000118 comb 0.000000 user 0.000000 sys 0.000000 (median of 19170)
revision: medium amount; added files: large amount; rename medium amount; c95f1ced15f2 2c68e87c3efe
filelog: ! wall 3.228230 comb 3.230000 user 3.110000 sys 0.120000 (median of 4)
base: ! wall 0.997640 comb 1.000000 user 0.980000 sys 0.020000 (median of 10)
before: ! wall 0.706594 comb 0.710000 user 0.710000 sys 0.000000 (median of 15)
after: ! wall 0.679500 comb 0.680000 user 0.680000 sys 0.000000 (median of 15)
revision: medium amount; added files: medium amount; rename small amount; d343da0c55a8 d7746d32bf9d
filelog: ! wall 1.052501 comb 1.060000 user 1.040000 sys 0.020000 (median of 10
base: ! wall 0.214519 comb 0.220000 user 0.220000 sys 0.000000 (median of 45)
before: ! wall 0.163736 comb 0.160000 user 0.160000 sys 0.000000 (median of 60)
after: ! wall 0.149675 comb 0.150000 user 0.150000 sys 0.000000 (median of 66)
Why not just add .unfiltered() here? That should be even faster (3.16s -> 2.90s compared to this patch for the case I tested).