RE: RE: Re: Scanning static directory tree for files

To save everyone else the trouble of telling you, here is a link to the response that launched a thousand rants: Here

J. J. Horner
Linux, Perl, Apache, Stronghold, Unix
jhorner@knoxlug.org http://www.knoxlug.org/

Comment on RE: RE: Re: Scanning static directory tree for files

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Scanning static directory tree for files by t0mas (Priest) on Jun 21, 2000 at 20:20 UTC
Maybe I, The Cause Of The Thousand Rants, can have a word in this. ;-) I've benchmarked File::Find and the recursive opendir stunt and my conclusions are theese: Use File::Find on Unix, It's much faster than other methods there. In the sub, put /\.mp3$/ before -f (because that's faster!). On Win32 the recursive opendir method is faster, or at least as fast if you want to match /\.mp3$/. BUT DON'T FORGET TO CHECK FOR SYMBOLIC LINKS ON *NIX if you choose to do recursive opendir there... /brother t0mas	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

BUT DON'T FORGET TO CHECK FOR SYMBOLIC LINKS ON *NIX