On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:18:58AM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote: > > > > > > Others already mentioned location. I'll just note that 'find' and 'ls > > -lR' should have comparable speeds. find's output should be nicer to > > parse. > > > > A single 'find' is normally enough to cache the relevant directories. > > > Well, you first need to do _one_ find before for both to have the same > speed. That's the problem. Locate seems to do what I want.
That is, unless you're not really sure the relevant sub-tree is up-to-date and run updatedb, which is equivalent to 'find /' (with proper excludes). -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il | | best tzaf...@debian.org | | friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100610222849.gx16...@pear.tzafrir.org.il
