From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc2xS-0001v6-FE for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:28:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46BC8E0512; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:28:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (smtp3-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.3]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27DE8E0512 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:28:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp3-g21.free.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13EA8181A2 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:28:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (toz.strangled.net [82.232.126.136]) by smtp3-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1B2A81817D for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:28:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:28:43 +0100 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090224202843.6c8b89e7@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20090224182416.3db4f60f@snowcone> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <1234450419.20950.2.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> <20090224141912.0a666a17@snowcone> <49A41A8C.1060002@gentoo.org> <20090224161449.07bc580a@snowcone> <49A42B86.9010903@gentoo.org> <20090224182416.3db4f60f@snowcone> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/LMLDqdx8Ei+9.lnp2/efjgh"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: ef98ea6f-b977-414e-9204-b15761db80f5 X-Archives-Hash: 1020f7d65e0e901b9a31e8346500876e --Sig_/LMLDqdx8Ei+9.lnp2/efjgh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:24:16 +0000 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:16:54 +0100 > Luca Barbato wrote: > > > You're doubling the number of files that have to be read for an > > > operation that's almost purely i/o bound. On top of that, you're > > > introducing a whole bunch of disk seeks in what's otherwise a nice > > > linear operation. > >=20 > > I see words, not numbers. >=20 > Number: double. That's a '2 times'. That only means you're increasing the constant factor in the complexity of the thing... which may very well be completely negligible unless someone provides real benchmarks. I would be very surprised if that "2 times" factor happens to be true, because finding a string in a file is an order of magnitude simpler than sourcing said file with bash. Moreover this doesn't take into account disk and os cache. Alexis. --Sig_/LMLDqdx8Ei+9.lnp2/efjgh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmkSmsACgkQvFcC4BYPU0qFVwCgryXQRRQiKTqxl+/uKPPOQhYr ppcAnibBhLcSPYkR+1Sh3r9axfzBhlvu =cZ6L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/LMLDqdx8Ei+9.lnp2/efjgh--