X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4AF393C6.3000505@tlinx.org> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:11:02 -0800 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.22 ThunderBrowse/3.2.6.5 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: 1.7] BUG - GREP slows to a crawl with large number of matches on a single file References: <26224019 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> In-Reply-To: <26224019.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Stationery: 0.4.10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com aputerguy wrote: > Running grep on a 20MB file with ~100,000 matches takes an incredible almost > 8 minutes under Cygwin 1.7 while taking just 0.2 seconds under Cygwin 1.5 > (on a 2nd machine). --- I've seen nasty behavior with grep that isnt' cygwin specific. Try "pcregrep" and see if you have the same issue. I found it to be about ~100 times faster under _some_ searches though 2-3x is more typical. The gnu re-parser isn't real efficient under some circumstances. If you find a big difference, you might also want to report it to the bug-grep AT gnu DOT org mailing list, but last time I did, they told me "that's the way it is" due to some posix conformance thing... -l -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple