4 ms·
considering that ripgrep has marginal overhead over just reading the files to /dev/null, how exactly does this achieve 100x speedup? I have a lot of use for so
by genewitch 7mo ago
considering that ripgrep has marginal overhead over just reading the files to /dev/null, how exactly does this achieve 100x speedup?
I have a lot of use for something that can search ~1GB of text "instantly", but so far nothing beats rg/ag after the data has been moved into RAM.
- anilakar 7mo agoThe trick to optimization is not "doing faster" but "doing less". I already feel rg is missing a ton of results I want to see because it has a very large ignore list by default.
- hoherd 7mo agoalias rg="rg -iuu"
- genewitch 6mo agoi see this - complaint? - often, but i use grep for finding text in files in the filesystem, like normal people. But specific datasets i'll use ag/rg. As an example, i have transcribed all of the "shows* i have access to for a couple of radio programs, when i want to do exploratory searches, i hit the set once with ag/rg, which takes 7-14 seconds to warm up once, then it's <1ms to search all 1500 text files or whatever. So while i'm sure ag/rg may be frustrating to use in certain circumstances, by default it works great for searching text files, even structured text files, on disk.
- Yokohiii 7mo agoThe crate says it uses SIMD, but the crate also says that content search is 20-50 times faster. Maybe the guy unsure how fast it is or how much speedup he should claim to get recognition.
- neogoose 7mo agoit very much depends on the platform and the operating system for example ripgrep doesn't do any memory mapping on macos which makes it 2-3x faster just becuase of that
- neogoose 7mo agoyou can try it yourself. ripgrep search for "MAX_FILE_SIZE" in the chromium repo takes 6-7 seconds, with fff it is 20milliseconds so essentially in this specific case it is over 1000x faster, but the repo size is huge (66G, 500k files)