Hacker News Reader

Comment by alkh | Hacker News Reader

The fact that even in the test example it took ripgrep 0.115 s with 97% CPU usage vs Krep's 0.106 s with 328% CPU usage is a testament of why ripgrep is still preferable. Such a huge tradeoff in resource consumption for such a small speed gain is hard to justify

View on HN

ripgrep author here.

Like many grep tools, it also has significant performance cliffs that are very easy to hit:

    $ time rg -o -c '[A-Z]' subtitles2016-sample.en
    51835353

    real    4.391
    user    4.344
    sys     0.042
    maxmem  923 MB
    faults  0
    $ time krep-1.0.2 -E -o -c '[A-Z]' subtitles2016-sample.en
    ^C

    real    8:02.95
    user    3:04:10.58
    sys     4.203
    maxmem  919 MB
    faults  0

ripgrep has cliffs too, but they tend to be rarer and/or still give decent perf.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com