On Sun, 08 May 2011, Bill Allombert wrote: > > Thanks, seems to work fine, I have no error/warning at least. > > > > batch of 1 pkg: 3m10.789s > > batch of 2 pkgs: 0m21.769s > > batch of 3 pkgs: 0m6.362s > > batch of 4 pkgs: 0m4.763s > > batch of 5 pkgs: 0m4.714s > > batch of 10 pkgs: 0m4.670s > > Direct access: 0m4.637s > > OK, so you get comparable results. It is very odd that there so much a > difference between > batch of 1 package and batch of 2 packages. Maybe this is a dpkg issue ?
Actually it's a bug in your script... replace "length @pkglist" with "scalar @pkglist" and you'll get entirely different results... which are much more logical. batch of 5: 0m37.426s batch of 10: 0m20.974s batch of 50: 0m7.722s batch of 200: 0m5.090s batch of 1000: 0m4.437s > Also, how does dpkg -L handles the dpkg lock ? It doesn't take the lock because it's a readonly operation. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
