What situation is `find` and `locate` best used in? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I know that locate has to have a database generated and is much faster, and that find does not need a database generated and is not as fast. So in what situations is find and locate more efficient/affective/give a better end result?
find command locate
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
closed as primarily opinion-based by Thomas Dickey, steve, Chris Down, Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch Dec 15 '17 at 23:58
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I know that locate has to have a database generated and is much faster, and that find does not need a database generated and is not as fast. So in what situations is find and locate more efficient/affective/give a better end result?
find command locate
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
closed as primarily opinion-based by Thomas Dickey, steve, Chris Down, Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch Dec 15 '17 at 23:58
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
A duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/q/60205/117549
– Jeff Schaller
Dec 16 '17 at 3:23
@JeffSchaller I don’t think my question is exactly a duplicate, though there are similarities... While my question is asking the pros and cons, I am asking in what situations would either of the two command be more efficient and affective and give better results.
– StrangeRanger
Dec 16 '17 at 4:45
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I know that locate has to have a database generated and is much faster, and that find does not need a database generated and is not as fast. So in what situations is find and locate more efficient/affective/give a better end result?
find command locate
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
I know that locate has to have a database generated and is much faster, and that find does not need a database generated and is not as fast. So in what situations is find and locate more efficient/affective/give a better end result?
find command locate
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
edited Dec 15 '17 at 23:09
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
asked Dec 15 '17 at 22:57
StrangeRanger
9119
9119
closed as primarily opinion-based by Thomas Dickey, steve, Chris Down, Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch Dec 15 '17 at 23:58
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Thomas Dickey, steve, Chris Down, Jeff Schaller, Stephen Rauch Dec 15 '17 at 23:58
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
A duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/q/60205/117549
– Jeff Schaller
Dec 16 '17 at 3:23
@JeffSchaller I don’t think my question is exactly a duplicate, though there are similarities... While my question is asking the pros and cons, I am asking in what situations would either of the two command be more efficient and affective and give better results.
– StrangeRanger
Dec 16 '17 at 4:45
add a comment |Â
A duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/q/60205/117549
– Jeff Schaller
Dec 16 '17 at 3:23
@JeffSchaller I don’t think my question is exactly a duplicate, though there are similarities... While my question is asking the pros and cons, I am asking in what situations would either of the two command be more efficient and affective and give better results.
– StrangeRanger
Dec 16 '17 at 4:45
A duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/q/60205/117549
– Jeff Schaller
Dec 16 '17 at 3:23
A duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/q/60205/117549
– Jeff Schaller
Dec 16 '17 at 3:23
@JeffSchaller I don’t think my question is exactly a duplicate, though there are similarities... While my question is asking the pros and cons, I am asking in what situations would either of the two command be more efficient and affective and give better results.
– StrangeRanger
Dec 16 '17 at 4:45
@JeffSchaller I don’t think my question is exactly a duplicate, though there are similarities... While my question is asking the pros and cons, I am asking in what situations would either of the two command be more efficient and affective and give better results.
– StrangeRanger
Dec 16 '17 at 4:45
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As you said, locate has a database and is therefore much faster, while find has to traverse the filesystem.
But locate's database only contains filenames (with their paths), while find can select files based on other meta data like mtime or size. So it is my resume versatile.
Also the database has to be updated in a batch effort, usually nightly, so files which have been created modified recently do not appear correctly.
Also you can expect every modern Unix system to have find available, while not all systems have locate's database enabled.
So, locate is faster, use it to find the location of a file, find is more versatile. There is no universal better.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run withsudoit may not find files that would be otherwise located withfind.
– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Typically the locate database is updated once per day. So if you need to search for anything that is newer than one day, you may need find for that.
On the other hand, the larger the filesystem you need to search, the faster locate will be over find. Especially so if the filesystem is on a network share.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As you said, locate has a database and is therefore much faster, while find has to traverse the filesystem.
But locate's database only contains filenames (with their paths), while find can select files based on other meta data like mtime or size. So it is my resume versatile.
Also the database has to be updated in a batch effort, usually nightly, so files which have been created modified recently do not appear correctly.
Also you can expect every modern Unix system to have find available, while not all systems have locate's database enabled.
So, locate is faster, use it to find the location of a file, find is more versatile. There is no universal better.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run withsudoit may not find files that would be otherwise located withfind.
– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As you said, locate has a database and is therefore much faster, while find has to traverse the filesystem.
But locate's database only contains filenames (with their paths), while find can select files based on other meta data like mtime or size. So it is my resume versatile.
Also the database has to be updated in a batch effort, usually nightly, so files which have been created modified recently do not appear correctly.
Also you can expect every modern Unix system to have find available, while not all systems have locate's database enabled.
So, locate is faster, use it to find the location of a file, find is more versatile. There is no universal better.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run withsudoit may not find files that would be otherwise located withfind.
– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
As you said, locate has a database and is therefore much faster, while find has to traverse the filesystem.
But locate's database only contains filenames (with their paths), while find can select files based on other meta data like mtime or size. So it is my resume versatile.
Also the database has to be updated in a batch effort, usually nightly, so files which have been created modified recently do not appear correctly.
Also you can expect every modern Unix system to have find available, while not all systems have locate's database enabled.
So, locate is faster, use it to find the location of a file, find is more versatile. There is no universal better.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
As you said, locate has a database and is therefore much faster, while find has to traverse the filesystem.
But locate's database only contains filenames (with their paths), while find can select files based on other meta data like mtime or size. So it is my resume versatile.
Also the database has to be updated in a batch effort, usually nightly, so files which have been created modified recently do not appear correctly.
Also you can expect every modern Unix system to have find available, while not all systems have locate's database enabled.
So, locate is faster, use it to find the location of a file, find is more versatile. There is no universal better.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:05
Thomas
44427
44427
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run withsudoit may not find files that would be otherwise located withfind.
– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
add a comment |Â
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run withsudoit may not find files that would be otherwise located withfind.
– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run with
sudo it may not find files that would be otherwise located with find.– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
I'm not an expert with either command by any means so take this with a grain of salt. However I believe another caveat of the locate database is that it will only include paths that the user who created it has read access. To me this means that even if run with
sudo it may not find files that would be otherwise located with find.– Jesse_b
Dec 15 '17 at 23:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Typically the locate database is updated once per day. So if you need to search for anything that is newer than one day, you may need find for that.
On the other hand, the larger the filesystem you need to search, the faster locate will be over find. Especially so if the filesystem is on a network share.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Typically the locate database is updated once per day. So if you need to search for anything that is newer than one day, you may need find for that.
On the other hand, the larger the filesystem you need to search, the faster locate will be over find. Especially so if the filesystem is on a network share.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Typically the locate database is updated once per day. So if you need to search for anything that is newer than one day, you may need find for that.
On the other hand, the larger the filesystem you need to search, the faster locate will be over find. Especially so if the filesystem is on a network share.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
Typically the locate database is updated once per day. So if you need to search for anything that is newer than one day, you may need find for that.
On the other hand, the larger the filesystem you need to search, the faster locate will be over find. Especially so if the filesystem is on a network share.
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
answered Dec 15 '17 at 23:17
telcoM
10.8k11232
10.8k11232
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
A duplicate of unix.stackexchange.com/q/60205/117549
– Jeff Schaller
Dec 16 '17 at 3:23
@JeffSchaller I don’t think my question is exactly a duplicate, though there are similarities... While my question is asking the pros and cons, I am asking in what situations would either of the two command be more efficient and affective and give better results.
– StrangeRanger
Dec 16 '17 at 4:45