jeffbee 3 days 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.

4
triyanox 3 days ago

Will 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 2 days ago

Not trying to “gotcha” you, but I would imagine that 10x the CPU of ls is still very little, or am I wrong?

jeffbee 2 days ago

In the case of the 500k tree, `lla` needs 2.5 seconds, so it's pretty substantial.

echoangle 2 days ago

Is listing a lot of files really CPU-limited? Isn’t the problem IO speed?

matheusmoreira 2 days ago

What exactly makes ls faster?

inquisitive-me 3 days ago

But it’s written in rust so it’s super fast. Did you take that into account when running your benchmarks? /s