From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Why does not rgrep use "grep -r"? Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:24:16 +0200 Message-ID: References: <472B99AB.3090705@gmail.com> <87ve8k8dyw.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <472BB921.20104@gmail.com> <87d4us6rnl.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <472BD29F.5090205@gmail.com> <877il06ltg.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <85bqabslzs.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <854pg1rg4v.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194240280 9248 80.91.229.12 (5 Nov 2007 05:24:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 05:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 05 06:24:42 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IouS1-00048f-3g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 06:24:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IouRq-0001U7-Gf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:30 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IouRn-0001U0-Ja for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:27 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IouRn-0001TO-30 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IouRm-0001T6-Rn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:26 -0500 Original-Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il ([213.8.233.22]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IouRf-00064i-7k; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-246-211.inter.net.il [80.230.246.211]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id IFR45277 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 07:21:40 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <854pg1rg4v.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:59:28 +0100) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:82541 Archived-At: > From: David Kastrup > Cc: miles@gnu.org, lennart.borgman@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:59:28 +0100 > What sense is there in using commands doing something quite different? > The first searches all files, the second just a subset. That's a typo: the --include argument got deleted somehow from the mail. Both commands were searching the same files. > > That's 11%, a much smaller gain, and in the other direction. > > How is this the other direction? You mean the other direction from your > first test rather than the test using GNU/Linux? Yes, with warm cache Grep was faster, with cold cache it's the other way around.