skywind3000 / skywind3000/z.lua
Performance compared to z.sh
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Lua
- Stars
- 3.1k
- Forks
- 148
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
I've been evaluating z.lua and so far I couldn't replicate 3x performance improvement claim compared to z.sh.
3x times faster than z.sh
~ ➤ time bash -ic 'for i in {1..1000}; do _zlua --add /tmp; done' &>/dev/null
bash -ic 'for i in {1..1000}; do _zlua --add /tmp; done' &> /dev/null 2.73s user 1.38s system 99% cpu 4.129 total
~ ➤ time bash -ic 'for i in {1..1000}; do _z --add /tmp; done' &>/dev/null
bash -ic 'for i in {1..1000}; do _z --add /tmp; done' &> /dev/null 4.64s user 2.74s system 100% cpu 7.311 total
Based on my calculations on two different systems, the performance improvement is "only" 1.7x.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reproducing the two benchmark commands using _zlua --add /tmp and _z --add /tmp in bash, across the systems described in the issue. Compare the implementations and benchmark conditions, then document or correct the discrepancy so the claimed performance comparison is reproducible.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- bash, lua, zsh
- Domain
- cli, performance
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100