Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Compare performance with some solutions #88

Closed
mrmlnc opened this issue Mar 24, 2018 · 1 comment
Closed

Compare performance with some solutions #88

mrmlnc opened this issue Mar 24, 2018 · 1 comment
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@mrmlnc
Copy link
Owner

mrmlnc commented Mar 24, 2018

Just for fun. To compare the performance with the following solutions:

  • ls
  • ripgrep
  • python.glob (and etc.)
  • Some solutions in area of activity
@mrmlnc mrmlnc self-assigned this Mar 24, 2018
@mrmlnc mrmlnc added this to the 3.0.0 milestone Feb 20, 2019
@mrmlnc
Copy link
Owner Author

mrmlnc commented Jun 16, 2019

Entries: 276k (node_modules)

  • fs.walk ~ 3s
  • fg:now ~ 4.5s
  • fg:old ~ 19s
  • time ls -aRN > ls.files.txt ~ 2.9s
  • time echo ** > echo.files.txt ~ 15s
  • time find . -name "**" > find.files.txt ~ 5s
  • time rg -g "*" --files -c -j0 > rg.files.txt ~ 5s

We can improve performance by optimizing filters in the fast-glob package (fs.walk looks like ls -R).

@mrmlnc mrmlnc closed this as completed Jun 16, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant