1 |
patch attached against 0.2.4.2-r1; rough stats follow; |
2 |
|
3 |
full cold cache |
4 |
|
5 |
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/equery in *... ] |
6 |
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.2.4.2-r1 (/usr/bin/equery) |
7 |
|
8 |
real 0m10.320s |
9 |
user 0m0.733s |
10 |
sys 0m0.162s |
11 |
|
12 |
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/equery in app-portage... ] |
13 |
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.2.4.2-r1 (/usr/bin/equery) |
14 |
|
15 |
real 0m8.512s |
16 |
user 0m0.315s |
17 |
sys 0m0.124s |
18 |
|
19 |
That particular cold cache is a *full* cold cache; not the best test |
20 |
imo since most users have at least some chunks of portage |
21 |
configuration/python cached. |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
Cold cache, with equery --help primer to warm the cache; CONTENTS |
25 |
(what belongs operates on) is still out of the cache however making |
26 |
this a bit more likely use scenario. |
27 |
|
28 |
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/equery in *... ] |
29 |
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.2.4.2-r1 (/usr/bin/equery) |
30 |
|
31 |
real 0m2.335s |
32 |
user 0m0.670s |
33 |
sys 0m0.050s |
34 |
|
35 |
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/equery in app-portage... ] |
36 |
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.2.4.2-r1 (/usr/bin/equery) |
37 |
|
38 |
real 0m0.391s |
39 |
user 0m0.248s |
40 |
sys 0m0.046s |
41 |
|
42 |
Pretty heavy difference, no? |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
hotcache: |
46 |
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/equery in *... ] |
47 |
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.2.4.2-r1 (/usr/bin/equery) |
48 |
|
49 |
real 0m0.710s |
50 |
user 0m0.661s |
51 |
sys 0m0.047s |
52 |
|
53 |
[ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/equery in app-portage... ] |
54 |
app-portage/gentoolkit-0.2.4.2-r1 (/usr/bin/equery) |
55 |
|
56 |
real 0m0.291s |
57 |
user 0m0.237s |
58 |
sys 0m0.053s |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
Mind you this isn't multiple runs, so the numbers are rough |
62 |
approximations- that said they're fairly representative. |
63 |
|
64 |
Strongly suggest y'all keep category support (although I'll keep on |
65 |
using pquery instead ;). |
66 |
|
67 |
Cheers, |
68 |
~harring |