On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:47 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:10 AM Jeff Hostetler <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> a quick test on my Windows machine shows that > >> > >> test_seq 1 10000 | xargs touch > >> > >> takes 3.1 seconds. > >> > >> just a simple > >> > >> test_seq 1 10000 >/dev/null > >> > >> take 0.2 seconds. > >> > >> using my test-tool helper cuts that time in half. > > > > Yeah, test_seq is pretty bad; it's just a loop in shell. Is there a > > 'seq' on windows, and does using it instead of test_seq make things > > faster with Ævar's suggested command? > > Unless I am misreading Jeff's message, I do not think that makes > sense. Counting to 10000 in shell loop is trivial (0.2 seconds), > but letting touch invoked 10000 times to create (or smudge mtime of, > but I suspect that is not what is going on here) 10000 files takes > 3.1 seconds, and of course a native binary that creates 10000 files > with a single invocation would be faster. > > > I'd really like to modify test_seq to use seq when it's available and > > fall back to the looping-in-shell when we need to for various > > platforms. > > So, if I am reading Jeff correctly, that optimizes something that is > not a bottleneck. Oh, indeed. Sorry, I misread.
