From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 10:48:04 +0000
Subject: [TUHS] Short history of 'grep'
In-Reply-To: <56AE4029.7010701@mhorton.net>
References: <20160130030012.GB9762@minnie.tuhs.org>
 <56AD0AB7.40701@mhorton.net>
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1601310639150.14724@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <56AD1B28.4010908@mhorton.net>
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1601310740170.14724@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <CAOkr1zUprhZws1WoD+4fuepMZkzNLO9HjNfLp1fGrDnjx4JKtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1601311227470.14724@aneurin.horsfall.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.20.1601301802360.8927@waffle.shalott.net>
 <56AE4029.7010701@mhorton.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1602011044300.21662@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>

Mary Ann Horton <mah at mhorton.net> wrote:

> It's not a typo.
>
> When I tell this story to nontechical folks, I prefix it with the brief note
> that fgrep ought to be fastest, because it's simple, and egrep ought to be
> slowest, because it's complex, but in reality fgrep is slowest and egrep is
> fastest.  Otherwise the story makes no sense.

Does fgrep win if you are matching lots of fixed strings?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aho%E2%80%93Corasick_algorithm

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: North or northwest 4 or 5. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good.