William James wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 9:14 AM, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? My assumption, that this is for testing future changes in
>> Solaris. Without doing shell script execution speed testing, I don't
>> think this is a good idea.
>
> Remember what Bruno Jargot wrote about performance and POSIX:
> |ksh93 is superior in functionality, performance and usability
> |compared to bash.
> |
> |A few numbers:
> |$ time bash -c 'i=0 ; s="" ; while [ $i -lt 10000 ] ; do i=$((i+1)) ;
> |s="$(echo ${s}x)" ; done'
> |
> |real 1m40.230s
> |user 1m10.660s
> |sys 0m7.548s
> |
> |$ time ksh93 -c 'i=0 ; s="" ; while [ $i -lt 10000 ] ; do i=$((i+1)) ;
> |s="$(echo ${s}x)" ; done'
> |
> |real 0m11.947s
> |user 0m8.641s
> |sys 0m1.540s
> |
> |ksh93 is much faster (10x) and has many features like arrays which
> |take strings as index, structures, floating point math, fully
> |implements and conforms the POSIX sh standard
>
> Cheers,
> William
Except that for very small programs, ksh93 is much slower than
the Bourne shell - about a factor of 4.2, according to libmicro
tests of system("A=$$");
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
