Re: ls -alR with wd?
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
Tzafrir Cohen | firstname.lastname@example.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
email@example.com | | best
firstname.lastname@example.org | | friend