| Re: FINDFILE vs. FILE_SEARCH [message #47018] |
Wed, 18 January 2006 09:26  |
news.qwest.net
Messages: 137
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Mark Conner" <mconner1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137600968.365781.139820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com.. .
> I'm using IDL 6.1 on WinXP Pro to look for a set of files (can be
> 1500+) in a directory on a Sun system connected via Samba. The
> directory appears as the standard UNC (\\server\directory\files.ext).
>
> I've read all the stuff that says to use FILE_SEARCH instead of
> FINDFILE. However, it takes nearly two minutes to return a list of
> files (setting /NOSORT saves perhaps a couple seconds). Using FINDFILE
> I get a list back in three seconds. Any ideas why?
>
> Network traffic or machine loads on either end are not a factor. I'm
> guessing it's a issue with how FILE_SEARCH interacts with
> Samba-connected directories, but does anyone know for sure?
> Workarounds (other than continuing to use FINDFILE and hope it works
> properly)?
>
> - Mark
In the past I have run into a lot of problems with the various filename
reading functions.
Some suggestions:
- use findfile (if it does indeed give a proper list of files)
- spawn to the system and get a file listing
- perhaps change the current directory (IDL> cd,'current_dir') then do the
filesearch function (then change the cd back)
- create a listing in the operating (>ls > dir.txt) then read that text file
into IDL
(if the file listing is fairly static, this should work fine)
- create a rule for predicting what filenames should exist (for instance,
with data
files with names like "wind20060101.dat', you can just create the filename,
then
see if it exists).
Cheers,
bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: FINDFILE vs. FILE_SEARCH [message #47096 is a reply to message #47020] |
Thu, 19 January 2006 09:06  |
Mark Conner
Messages: 9
Registered: September 2004
|
Junior Member |
|
|
It was not being used recursively, and there are no subdirectories in
the directory being read.
David - Prayer is probably the correct solution, though not nearly as
satisfying as a good rant or monitor punch.
I conducted a test by performing a CD into the desired Samba-connected
directory and then performed FILE_SEARCH without a directory specified,
but it was not any faster than specifying the directory within
FILE_SEARCH itself.
It appears there is some dependency on the number of filenames
returned. If I search the same directory but specify a wildcard that
returns fewer files, the search time is shorter. # of files in the
directory was the same for each test.
IDL> print,systime() & z=file_search('20060119*.nogaps') &
print,systime()
Thu Jan 19 10:49:06 2006
Thu Jan 19 10:49:51 2006
IDL> help,z
Z STRING = Array[952]
(45 seconds to return 952 filenames)
IDL> print,systime() & z=file_search('2006011906*.nogaps') &
print,systime()
Thu Jan 19 10:51:15 2006
Thu Jan 19 10:51:24 2006
IDL> help,z
Z STRING = Array[136]
(9 seconds to return 136 filenames)
I created a directory with 2000 files on the local hard drive and both
FILE_SEARCH and FINDFILE read them within a second, so the sheer number
of filenames is not the issue. So my guess is that FILE_SEARCH and
Samba don't play efficiently together.
- Mark
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
