Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Optimizing performance for script to traverse on filesystem

by graff (Chancellor)
on Feb 03, 2012 at 04:34 UTC ( #951598=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Optimizing performance for script to traverse on filesystem
in thread Optimizing performance for script to traverse on filesystem

Thank you for the invitation. Actually, it might be a worthwhile first step just to make sure my assertion isn't based on faulty evidence. If you get a chance to check out the benchmark in the thread I cited above (specifically at this node: Re^2: Get useful info about a directory tree), it's entirely possible that the timing results there are reflecting something other than a difference between File::Find and straight recursion with opendir/readdir.

(I've seen enough benchmark discussions here at the monastery to know that a proper benchmark can be an elusive creature.)

If that benchmark happens to be a valid comparison of the two approaches, it would also be a good exercise for a debugger or profiler session, to see what's causing the difference.

In any case, I definitely don't want to dissuade people from using File::Find or its various derivatives and convenience wrappers -- they do make for much easier solutions to the basic problem, and in the vast majority of cases, a little extra run time is a complete non-issue. (It's just that I've had to face a few edge cases where improving run time when traversing insanely large directories made a big difference.)


Comment on Re^3: Optimizing performance for script to traverse on filesystem

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://951598]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-23 06:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (134 votes), past polls