[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADkMHC=b582NQ1cRoFyCZsDhhqAePPkoD9qKAm3WTQQYxRXP0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:35:37 -0700
From: RB <aoz.syn@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: parallel sort of text files under Windows
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 08:48:46AM -0700, RB wrote:
>> This is actually a huge win with nearly any modern size of memory.
>
> Of course, but at sizes below 2 GB "unique" is always faster than sort
> (when using one CPU core).
Of course, my intent wasn't comparing 'sort' and 'unique' at all, it
was more just a general comment on use of coreutils sort.
>> -S and --parallel are some of my best friends.
>
> Out of these two, -S makes a lot more difference than --parallel.
> (Of course, you can use both.)
Agreed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
