SliTaz Doc

Information

In some cases, both tools can do the same job. As a built-in ash/bash command, variable substitution is faster. Note: this is always true - you can compare each type of variable substitution with an equivalent using an external tool.

Benchmark

$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000); do
	echo "slitaz" | sed 's/slitaz/SliTaz/'
done' > /tmp/slow
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000); do
	A=slitaz
	echo "${A/slitaz/SliTaz}"
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow
> real	0m 12.40s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 0.04s

Information

Group command “{}” groups several commands into one (as a function). So, output can be grouped too: “{ com1; com2; } | com3”. Sub-process “()” achieves something similar, but creates a shell sub-process; which costs a lot more resources. Another difference is that when you kill an application using CTRL^C, a sub-process is killed instead of a main application - while CTRL^C on grouped commands kills the application itself. Finally, changing directory or variables into sub-processes will not affect the main script which it does with grouped commands. Conclusion: always use group commands instead of sub-processes, and take care ;D

Note: group commands need a newline before closing - or “; }”.

Benchmark

$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 10000); do
	( echo yo )
done' > /tmp/slow
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 10000); do
	{ echo yo; }
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow
> real	0m 5.36s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 0.23s

Information

fgrep is exactly the same thing as grep if you don't use patterns (^,$,*,etc.). Fgrep is optimized to handle such cases, particularly when you look for several different plain patterns. A difference can be found even if you look in only one pattern.

Benchmark

$ echo -e "line1\nline2\nline3" > /tmp/file
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000); do
	grep 3 /tmp/file
done' > /tmp/slow
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000); do
	fgrep 3 /tmp/file
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow
> real	0m 11.87s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 3.21s

Information

The two commands test if “text” exists. Using -n slows the process and weighs down the script a little too.

Benchmark

$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[  -n "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/slow
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[ "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow
> real	0m 15.56s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 14.11s

Information

These three commands test if text doesn't exist. [ ! “text” ] and [ -z “text” ] have a similar processing time, while ! [ “text” ] is speedier.

Benchmark

$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[  -n "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/slow1
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[  -n "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/slow2
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[ "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow1 /tmp/slow2 /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow1
> real	0m 15.53s
$ time /tmp/slow2
> real	0m 15.60s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 14.27s

Information

Awk, as cut, can be used to cut a field of a line. Awk can do many other things, while cut is a tool dedicated to this usage; it's why cut is a little faster for this task.

Benchmark

$ echo -e "field1\tfield2\tfield3" > /tmp/file
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 5000); do
	awk '"'"'{ print $2 }'"'"' /tmp/file
done' > /tmp/slow
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 5000); do
	cut -f2 /tmp/file
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow
> real	0m 16.61s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 15.90s

Information

While && is a fast built-in function, in this case it uses two processes (two test functions) instead of one. So, using -a is a little faster, as the “AND” function itself is slower but makes it possible to use only one process.

Benchmark

$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[ "$i" ] && [ "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/slow
$ echo '#!/bin/sh
for i in $(seq 1 1000000); do
	[  "$i"  -a "$i" ]
done' > /tmp/speed
$ chmod +x /tmp/slow /tmp/speed
$ time /tmp/slow
> real	0m 23.94s
$ time /tmp/speed
> real	0m 22.29s