Ripgrep – A new command line search tool

Post by ggreer » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #108

burntsushi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response! Some notes: 1. In my benchmarks, I do control for line numbers by either explicitly making it a variable (i.e., when you see `(lines)`) or by making all tools count lines to make the comparison fair. For the most part, this only tends to matter in the single-file benchmarks. 2. For memory maps, you might get very different results depending on your environment. For example, I enabled memory m…

I notice that subsequent runs in the same (non changing) directory get different results. These runs are all within 20 seconds, what gives? $ rg each | md5sum 670b544e15f9430d9934334a11a87b7e - $ rg each | md5sum 4d13be6b4531ad52b1b476314fe98fb7 - rg each | md5sum 88e15dbb943665ea54482cb499741938 - rg each | md5sum eec6d6d5c9a592cec25aa8b0c19aae15 - rg each | md5sum ad74b78ef8f0d21450f8f87415555af0 - And: $ date Sat…

Post by mbrubeck » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 10:59 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #108

burntsushi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response! Some notes: 1. In my benchmarks, I do control for line numbers by either explicitly making it a variable (i.e., when you see `(lines)`) or by making all tools count lines to make the comparison fair. For the most part, this only tends to matter in the single-file benchmarks. 2. For memory maps, you might get very different results depending on your environment. For example, I enabled memory m…

I notice that subsequent runs in the same (non changing) directory get different results. These runs are all within 20 seconds, what gives? $ rg each | md5sum 670b544e15f9430d9934334a11a87b7e - $ rg each | md5sum 4d13be6b4531ad52b1b476314fe98fb7 - rg each | md5sum 88e15dbb943665ea54482cb499741938 - rg each | md5sum eec6d6d5c9a592cec25aa8b0c19aae15 - rg each | md5sum ad74b78ef8f0d21450f8f87415555af0 - And: $ date Sat…

Post by mvermaat » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #103

burntsushi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response! Some notes: 1. In my benchmarks, I do control for line numbers by either explicitly making it a variable (i.e., when you see `(lines)`) or by making all tools count lines to make the comparison fair. For the most part, this only tends to matter in the single-file benchmarks. 2. For memory maps, you might get very different results depending on your environment. For example, I enabled memory m…

In terms of core features, ripgrep is totally there. It searches fast . It ignores files pretty accurately. It outputs results in a pleasant and useful format. If a new user tries rg, they'll be very happy. My warning about the feature differences was meant to temper ag users' expectations. There are lots of little things that ag users are accustomed to that are either different or missing in ripgrep. Off the top of…

Post by samatman » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 11:13 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #103

burntsushi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response! Some notes: 1. In my benchmarks, I do control for line numbers by either explicitly making it a variable (i.e., when you see `(lines)`) or by making all tools count lines to make the comparison fair. For the most part, this only tends to matter in the single-file benchmarks. 2. For memory maps, you might get very different results depending on your environment. For example, I enabled memory m…

In terms of core features, ripgrep is totally there. It searches fast . It ignores files pretty accurately. It outputs results in a pleasant and useful format. If a new user tries rg, they'll be very happy. My warning about the feature differences was meant to temper ag users' expectations. There are lots of little things that ag users are accustomed to that are either different or missing in ripgrep. Off the top of…

Post by kaushalmodi » Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 11:18 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #103

burntsushi wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response! Some notes: 1. In my benchmarks, I do control for line numbers by either explicitly making it a variable (i.e., when you see `(lines)`) or by making all tools count lines to make the comparison fair. For the most part, this only tends to matter in the single-file benchmarks. 2. For memory maps, you might get very different results depending on your environment. For example, I enabled memory m…

In terms of core features, ripgrep is totally there. It searches fast . It ignores files pretty accurately. It outputs results in a pleasant and useful format. If a new user tries rg, they'll be very happy. My warning about the feature differences was meant to temper ag users' expectations. There are lots of little things that ag users are accustomed to that are either different or missing in ripgrep. Off the top of…