If you do not perform an updatedb command periodically, the database for
the locate command will not be very thorough in its regurgitation. I
find the locate command works so fast that its worth the wait for the
updatedb command to run and then use the locate command instead of find.
Tom
Russ Johnson wrote:
>
> The reason locate is so fast is that it has a database. Unfortunately, I
> don't believe that database (by default anyway) includes the whole hard
> drive. That's why I use find. Locate seemed to miss files that I know were
> on the hard drive.
>
> Also, find will use the name only, with the options I gave earlier. So the
> command "find / -name core -print" will only list core files to the screen.
>
> Russ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lane Lester
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 4:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [expert] find a file
>
> Russ Johnson said:
>
> > find [root of search] [option] regex [option]
> >
> > So, to find the file "httpd" do the following:
> >
> > First, if you like, try "which httpd". It might be in your path. If that
> > doesn't do anything, then try "find / -name httpd -print". That find
> command
> > will search the whole file system for that file.
>
> I like to use "locate" because it's so fast. I wrote a small script that
> just
> does the following with "lm":
> locate $1 | more
> because I use that so often. But is there a way to restrict the search for a
> precise set of characters (I didn't find it in the man page... at least not
> so
> I could understand it).
>
> For example, I was looking for "core" files to delete, and locate gave me a
> flock of "corel" entries.
> --
> Lane
> ____
> Lane Lester / Madison County, Georgia USA
> Using Linux to get where I want to go...
