Bret Hughes,
On Friday October 25, 2002 01:46, Bret Hughes wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 12:07, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > there is a handy command, "seq", which will generate sequences of
> > > numbers that you can then plug into any command, as in
> >
> > Heh. With a little work, you can do that in bash without the command
> > substitution:
> >
> > LOOP=0
> > while [[ LOOP++ -lt 100 ]]; do mkdir $LOOP; done
> >
> > Handy to know if you have bash but not sh-utils installed.
>
> yep but apparently a lot slower. I figured that it would be quicker but
> I guess calling mkdir 100 time as opposed to calling it once with may
> args makes the difference. The results of my quick and dirty tests:
<snip>
> [bhughes@bretsony bhughes]$ time mkdir $(seq 1 100)
>
> real 0m0.016s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m0.020s
<snip>
> [bhughes@bretsony bhughes]$ time { LOOP=0;while [[ LOOP++ -lt 100 ]]; do
> mkdir $LOOP;done }
>
> real 0m0.507s
> user 0m0.150s
> sys 0m0.240s
<snip>
> interesting I thought.
So you should eliminate the repetitive calls to mkdir with something like...
time { AR=" "; LOOP=0; while [[ LOOP++ -lt 100 ]]; do AR="$AR $LOOP"; done;
mkdir $AR; }
Do you want to see how that compares? It should be more competitive but still
a little slower.
--
Brian Ashe CTO
Dee-Web Software Services, LLC. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@;redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
