alt Hacker NewsHow much of the speedup over GNU ls is due to lacking localization features? Your results table is pretty much consistent with my local observations: in a dir with 13k files, `ls -al` needs 33ms. But 25% of that time is spent by libc in `strcoll`. Under `LC_ALL=C` it takes just 27ms, which is getting closer to the time of your program.
I didn't include `busybox` in my initial table, so it isn't on the blog post but the repo has the data...but I am 99% sure busybox does not have locale support, so I think GNU ls without locale support would probably be closer to busybox.
Locales also bring in a lot more complicated sorting - so that could be a factor also.