10 ms·

Wow this is amazing. It's super fast and has a very easy to follow help page, plus the formatting is pretty awesome. I just did a quick benchmark searching for

by anooh 5y ago

Wow this is amazing. It's super fast and has a very easy to follow help page, plus the formatting is pretty awesome. I just did a quick benchmark searching for `kthreadd` using grep and ag and it's magnitudes faster than grep. Thank you for sharing this. I hope I can convince the network admins at my workplace to install this tool. In addition, A+ for the ag's design for `mmap()` ing files instead reading them into a buffer. Bench marks: Using Grep ```bash $ time grep -Rsn "kthreadd" ... real 0m25.341s user 0m5.738s sys 0m4.074s ``` Using ag: ```bash $ time ag "kthreadd" ... real 0m2.182s user 0m1.306s sys 0m1.773s ```

asicsp 5y ago
I'd suggest ripgrep [0] for even faster results. [0] https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep
- sva_ 5y ago
  Might also want to use FZF as selection interface for the ripgrep results, if applicable.
- capableweb 5y ago
  ripgrep doesn't seem to just be fast, it has a good set of features compared to the alternatives too! https://beyondgrep.com/feature-comparison/ https://beyondgrep.com/feature-comparison/
  - jedimind 5y ago
    I always wondered what the differences between all those mysteriously named search tools are, great resource, thanks for sharing!
- einpoklum 5y ago
  It's Rust-based, though, and is thus difficult to get installed on older systems.
  - burntsushi 5y ago
    Which systems? I have a ten year old laptop it works fine on.
danadam 5y ago
> I just did a quick benchmark searching for `kthreadd` using grep and ag and it's magnitudes faster than grep. I'd be careful with that. You may have just tested the awesomeness of linux caches :-) Yes, it "looks" magnitudes faster: ]$ time grep -Rsn "kthreadd" ... real 0m26.895s user 0m3.131s sys 0m3.151s ]$ time ag "kthreadd" ... real 0m0.906s user 0m1.930s sys 0m1.186s ]$ time rg "kthreadd" ... real 0m0.860s user 0m1.756s sys 0m1.123s But wait, somehow grep got magnitutes faster too: ]$ time grep -Rsn "kthreadd" ... real 0m2.961s user 0m1.979s sys 0m0.959s And we can make both ag and rg slower: ]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ]$ time ag "kthreadd" ... real 0m17.761s user 0m2.371s sys 0m2.728s ]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ]$ time rg "kthreadd" ... real 0m19.276s user 0m1.859s sys 0m3.063s

by anooh 5y ago

asicsp 5y ago

I'd suggest ripgrep [0] for even faster results. [0] https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep

sva_ 5y ago
Might also want to use FZF as selection interface for the ripgrep results, if applicable.
capableweb 5y ago
ripgrep doesn't seem to just be fast, it has a good set of features compared to the alternatives too! https://beyondgrep.com/feature-comparison/ https://beyondgrep.com/feature-comparison/
- jedimind 5y ago
  I always wondered what the differences between all those mysteriously named search tools are, great resource, thanks for sharing!
einpoklum 5y ago
It's Rust-based, though, and is thus difficult to get installed on older systems.
- burntsushi 5y ago
  Which systems? I have a ten year old laptop it works fine on.

danadam 5y ago

> I just did a quick benchmark searching for `kthreadd` using grep and ag and it's magnitudes faster than grep. I'd be careful with that. You may have just tested the awesomeness of linux caches :-) Yes, it "looks" magnitudes faster: ]$ time grep -Rsn "kthreadd" ... real 0m26.895s user 0m3.131s sys 0m3.151s ]$ time ag "kthreadd" ... real 0m0.906s user 0m1.930s sys 0m1.186s ]$ time rg "kthreadd" ... real 0m0.860s user 0m1.756s sys 0m1.123s But wait, somehow grep got magnitutes faster too: ]$ time grep -Rsn "kthreadd" ... real 0m2.961s user 0m1.979s sys 0m0.959s And we can make both ag and rg slower: ]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ]$ time ag "kthreadd" ... real 0m17.761s user 0m2.371s sys 0m2.728s ]# echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ]$ time rg "kthreadd" ... real 0m19.276s user 0m1.859s sys 0m3.063s