On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Nexor <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks James, > >>> Thank you so much for the detailed response. I didn't know I can >>> simply use 'head' to get what I need. >> >> There is a difference between the two approaches. Writing through >> a pipe to "head -8" will kill the writer when the 9th result is >> printed. If the cost of finding an additional match is significant >> (or only N matches exist) then there is a potential waste of resources >> involved in finding the extra match. For most uses this is not a big >> deal and the approach using "head" works just fine. > > Do you think it would make sense to implement (yet) another option to > find?
No. As I mentioned before, there are already two different ways to do this, neither of which requires changing find. > It could be something like -maxresults N and would do exactly > that - stop the search after finding N matches. > I use it for generating a report for the administrator - I don't need > full results because they are not processed automatically anyway. I'm > not sure if more people could find something like maxresults usable. > > cheers, > Tomek > > >
