in my laptop difference is between 0.4s and 0.02s which is enought important performance change for me.
I also suffer this slow down in the shellscript version..but sometimes it gets about 5 or 10 seconds to complete (at first boot, or after updating the system). which is really anoying. i would probably even improve the heap usage of this .c, but it's better solution than the shellscript one IMHO. On Wed, 19 May 2010 12:09:33 +0200 Premysl Hruby <dfe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On (19/05/10 12:58), Elmo Todurov wrote: > > Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:58:16 +0300 > > From: Elmo Todurov <todu...@gmail.com> > > To: dev mail list <dev@suckless.org> > > Subject: Re: [dev] dmenu_path rewrite in C > > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) > > Gecko/20100330 Shredder/3.0.4 > > List-Id: dev mail list <dev.suckless.org> > > > > On 05/19/2010 12:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > >I think the existing shell script based dmenu caching is > > >already quite fast (assumed the cache exists) > > > > The reason I wrote this is occasional lag when executing dmenu. I'm > > not sure I've fixed the problem, though (= Consider it an exercise > > in practical tool programming. > > > > > and I doubt that your > > >native tool does make the cache propagation itself faster. > > > > What does "propagation" mean here? It _does_ make reading the cache > > faster. Let me paste my unscientific tests: > > > > When cache is up-to-date: > > $ time ./dmenu_path_c 2>&1 > /dev/null > > > > For the C program I get typically > > real 0m0.008s > > > > For the shell script I get typically > > real 0m0.032s > > That's such a small difference... current shell solution caching is IMHO > fast enought. > > > > When cache is old: > > rm ~/.dmenu_cache; time ./dmenu_path_sh 2>&1 > /dev/null > > > > For the C program I get typically > > real 0m0.047s > > > > For the shell script I get typically > > real 0m0.700s > > > > Conclusion: 0.7 seconds is somewhat noticeable lag. It's another > > question whether it's worth the effort to write the C program, but > > hey, it's been done already. > > Well, I (and others possibly) have no concern about cache miss, my files > in $PATH doesn't changes every five minutes :-) > > So, I see no reason to have it "mainline". > > -Ph > > -- > Premysl "Anydot" Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/ > - > I'm a signature virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread! >
