Re: with dir_index ls is slower than without?

[Nicolas KOWALSKI <niko petole dyndns org>]

"Sebastian Reitenbach" <sebastia l00-bugdead-prods de> writes:

> installhost2:~ # time ls -la /mnt/index/ | wc -l
>  500005
>  
>  real 2m41.015s
>  user 0m4.568s
>  sys 0m6.520s
>  
>  
>  installhost2:~ # time ls -la /mnt/noindex/ | wc -l
>  500005
>  
>  real 0m10.792s
>  user 0m3.172s
>  sys 0m6.000s
>
> I expected the dir_index should speedup this a little bit?
> I assume I'm still missing sth?

I think the point of dir_index is "only" to quickly find in a large
directory a file when you _already_ have its name.

The performance of listing is not its purpose, and as you noted it,
even makes performance worse.

-- 
Nicolas