Re: [tlug] rsync efficiency (was: The Mother of All (bash) Commands)

[Attila Kinali <attila@example.com>]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 08:54:46 +0900
"Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com> wrote:

> On 31/03/2008, Attila Kinali <attila@example.com> wrote:
> 
> >  Of course, my example is a bit on the extreme side, but rsync
> >  claims to be fast and efficient, which it definitly is not.
> 
> Not to defend rsync here, but just because an algorithm has a
> pathological case does not make it inefficient, it just means that it
> has a pathological case. Which is why algorithms are rated for best,
> worst, and average case performance.

Yes, but would you call a sorting algorithm fast, if it would
perform good on random sorted data (O(n*log(n)), but take o(exp(n))
if the data is reverse ordered? Yes, it might be a pathological
case, but if this pathological case is actually quite common,
then the algorithm as a big flaw.

			Attila Kinali


-- 
Praised are the Fountains of Shelieth, the silver harp of the waters,
But blest in my name forever this stream that stanched my thirst!
                         -- Deed of Morred