4 ms·
On my system it uses twice as much CPU as plain old ls in a directory with just 13k files. To recursively list a directory with 500k leaf files, lla needs > 10x
by jeffbee 2y ago
On my system it uses twice as much CPU as plain old ls in a directory with just 13k files. To recursively list a directory with 500k leaf files, lla needs > 10x as much CPU. Apparently it is both slower and with higher complexity.
- matheusmoreira 2y agoWhat exactly makes ls faster?
- triyanox 2y agoOn the latest release the it can list a tree of 100 in depth with over 100k files in less than 100ms and if cached 40ms
- inquisitive-me 2y agoBut it’s written in rust so it’s super fast. Did you take that into account when running your benchmarks? /s
- triyanox 2y agoWill definitely prioritize optimization in the next releases. Planning to benchmark against ls on various systems and file counts to get this properly sorted.
- niek_pas 2y agoNot trying to “gotcha” you, but I would imagine that 10x the CPU of ls is still very little, or am I wrong?