Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jim Meyering wrote: >>> I'll use 180. >>> The lower we go, the more of a performance penalty >>> we impose for directories with very many entries. >> >> I tried the value 180. It worked fine in some cases, but still failed in >> others: > ... >> Thus, instead of testing whether the number of directory entries since the >> last rewind() exceeds a fixed number, a better test is probably whether >> >> (total length of file names since last rewind() >> + 10 * number of directory entries since last rewind()) >> > a fixed number such as 3000 > > Thanks for the quick test and analysis! > Considering all of that, I may just keep the code simple > and make rm always do an extra rewind on Darwin.
FYI, decreasing that constant all the way to 1 (be as conservative as possible) has relatively little impact on performance. In the worst case, a deep and narrow hierarchy, I see a performance decrease of only 8%.
