Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!well!ewhac
From: ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Large directory or many small directories?
Message-ID: <3881@well.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Sep-87 16:47:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: well.3881
Posted: Thu Sep  3 16:47:08 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 13:47:31 EDT
References: <550@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab)
Organization: Political Computer Animations, Inc.
Lines: 21
Summary: But *use* directories!

In article <550@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> rokicki@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Tomas
Rokicki) writes an industrial-strength article about relative efficiency in
scanning many directories versus fewer directories.

	This should not be taken to mean that you should not use directories
at all.  Witness Activision's "Portal".  Do a 'dir' on it some time.  You
should get a file list in about three minutes.

	There are over 300 files in that root directory.  When the program
tried to open one, the DOS takes about five hashing collisions before it
finds it.  Evidently, the programmer never heard of a directory before.

	So use the bloody things, and cut down on hashing collisions.

[ Note:  The "Portal" disk is an extreme case, but still a real-world one. ]

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape	ihnp4!ptsfa -\
 \_ -_	 Bike shrunk by popular demand,	      dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o	 But it's still the only way to fly.  hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR anybody!  I'm just having fun."  -- The Doctor