[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote: > `ls -U` may be faster than the `find` > > Either way I surmised it's a matter of reading every dirent, and I > figured that should be about the same whichever program does it. > > but I'm not sure what your script does. > > Nothing complicated, though no doubt Jim will find a zillion suboptimal > things in it :).
:) I was surprised to see how small the directory was, too. If it were really big, it _might_ be worthwhile to filter via find rather than making find generate a ton of output only to filter the result via grep right afterwards.
