From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21070 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2016 18:15:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 21365 Received: (qmail 24556 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2016 18:15:43 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Originating-IP: [82.20.18.64] X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.1 cv=fJLEpsue c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=tQ56d2wE10i0ATcm3CvKvA==:117 a=tQ56d2wE10i0ATcm3CvKvA==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=41mcwlS6TeE-tNfMmD4A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:10:09 +0000 From: Peter Stephenson To: Zsh Users Subject: Re: Extended globbing seems to have become much slower in recent versions of Zsh Message-ID: <20160306181009.412c31be@ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <160305094723.ZM22954@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <160229111212.ZM4272@torch.brasslantern.com> <160301102807.ZM8036@torch.brasslantern.com> <160301160356.ZM10258@torch.brasslantern.com> <20160304140342.4477e2c1@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20160304142046.7e1bc9ba@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20160304214921.06c6587f@ntlworld.com> <160305094723.ZM22954@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sat, 5 Mar 2016 09:47:23 -0800 Bart Schaefer wrote: > On Mar 4, 9:49pm, Peter Stephenson wrote: > } Subject: Re: Extended globbing seems to have become much slower in recent > } > } This is what I meant. It may not be related to the slow down in > } question, but it should speed up repeated use of exclusion patterns in > } any case. > > Sadly, on my desktop this actually SLOWS DOWN the process even further. > The below is for a glob of 13,000 files (largest/deepest tree I have > handy) with "repeat 3" and Jesper's pattern: That suggests either I've made a mistake in the optimisation portion (which I didn't explicit test, only that it gave the correct behaviour), or the repeated allocation ad nfreeing of similar length strings is close to optimal in allocation already... or a combination. pws