Hacker News Reader

But it’s written in rust so it’s super fast. Did you take that into account when running your benchmarks? /s

Will definitely prioritize optimization in the next releases. Planning to benchmark against ls on various systems and file counts to get this properly sorted.

Not trying to “gotcha” you, but I would imagine that 10x the CPU of ls is still very little, or am I wrong?

In the case of the 500k tree, `lla` needs 2.5 seconds, so it's pretty substantial.

Is listing a lot of files really CPU-limited? Isn’t the problem IO speed?

What exactly makes ls faster?

On the latest release the it can list a tree of 100 in depth with over 100k files in less than 100ms and if cached 40ms