Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
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.
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Merciadri Luca
luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be wrote:
`locate' is really, really, really, really faster. I had no knowledge
about it. Thanks a lot.
Just remember, locate is much faster because it's reading a database.
Results from find reflect the state of your
John wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Merciadri Luca
luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be wrote:
Just remember, locate is much faster because it's reading a database.
Results from find reflect the state of your system NOW, and results
from locate reflect what your system was whenever
On 06/10/2010 03:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Hi,
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer
using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does
not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row
giving this? Thanks.
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 06/10/2010 03:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote:
This might be useful to you. I wrote it while pining away for the
OpenVMS DIR command, after seeing how incredibly useless ls -alR is.
http://members.cox.net/ron.l.johnson/pydir
Thanks. I'll try it.
--
Merciadri Luca
See
On Thursday 10 June 2010 15:58:58 Merciadri Luca wrote:
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer
using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does
not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row
giving this? Thanks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/10/2010 04:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Hi,
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer
using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does
not give me the directory where `stuff' is
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Thursday 10 June 2010 15:58:58 Merciadri Luca wrote:
You can't. Use find correctly. If you do, it will always be faster than (ls
-alR | grep $stuff).
And what means `use find correctly?' Is `find . -name mystuff' so bad?
--
Merciadri Luca
See
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:58:58 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files.
(...)
I've got a one-liner saved:
***
find /directory/to/find/* -type f -exec grep -H 'text' {} \;
***
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58:58PM +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Hi,
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer
using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does
not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:58:58 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files.
(...)
I've got a one-liner saved:
***
find /directory/to/find/* -type f -exec grep
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 09:46:12PM +, Camaleón wrote:
find /directory/to/find/* -type f -exec grep -H 'text' {} \;
For that application, wouldn't you be better just using grep alone?
i.e. grep -r 'text' /directory/to/find/
Cheers,
Tom
--
Raising pet electric eels is gaining a lot of
Hi,
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer
using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does
not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some row
giving this? Thanks.
--
Merciadri Luca
See
Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
On 06/10/2010 04:58 PM, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Hi,
I find `find' very inefficient when trying to find some files. I prefer
using `ls -alR | grep stuff' The problem is that the related output does
not give me the directory where `stuff' is found. How can I add some
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
