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.

▲

triyanox 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

On 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

▲

triyanox 8 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

jeffbee 7 months ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	echoangle 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Is listing a lot of files really CPU-limited? Isn’t the problem IO speed?

▲

matheusmoreira 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What exactly makes ls faster?

▲

inquisitive-me 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

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