alternative to fstat ?

[solarisss]

I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.
I think fstat is too costly for this.
Is there any better way for the same ?

[Joachim Schmitz]

"solarisss" <sa************ **@gmail.comsch rieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d6******** *************** ***********@s19 g2000prg.google groups.com...

>I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.
I think fstat is too costly for this.
Is there any better way for the same ?

OT here, but in POSIX you'd have stat() (which would save you the fopen())
and access() (which should be much cheaper as it doesn't have to fill the
entire struct stat).

Bye, Jojo

[Richard Tobin]

In article <fj**********@o nline.de>,
Joachim Schmitz <jo**@schmitz-digital.dewrote :

>OT here, but in POSIX you'd have stat() (which would save you the fopen())
and access() (which should be much cheaper as it doesn't have to fill the
entire struct stat).

I doubt access() would be significantly cheaper since it still has
to do a system call and get the inode of the file.

-- Richard
--
:wq

[Joachim Schmitz]

"Richard Tobin" <ri*****@cogsci .ed.ac.ukschrie b im Newsbeitrag
news:fj******** ***@pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk...

In article <fj**********@o nline.de>,
Joachim Schmitz <jo**@schmitz-digital.dewrote :

>>OT here, but in POSIX you'd have stat() (which would save you the fopen())
and access() (which should be much cheaper as it doesn't have to fill the
entire struct stat).

I doubt access() would be significantly cheaper since it still has
to do a system call and get the inode of the file.

It is significantly cheaper on a system I frequently work with.

Bye, Jojo

[SM Ryan]

solarisss <sa************ **@gmail.comwro te:
# I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.
# I think fstat is too costly for this.
# Is there any better way for the same ?

stat information is not generally stored as part of the directory;
getting inode information generally generally requires a random
disc access. Some file systems might allow store inodes to improve
reading them, but that would be implementation dependent.

--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
There are subtler ways of badgering a witness.

[Thomas Maier-Komor]

solarisss schrieb:

I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.
I think fstat is too costly for this.
Is there any better way for the same ?

if the files are located in few common directories, fstatat might be an
option on Solaris. Don't know about other systems...

- Thomas

[Kenneth Brody]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>
"solarisss" <sa************ **@gmail.comsch rieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d6******** *************** ***********@s19 g2000prg.google groups.com...

I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^

I think fstat is too costly for this.
Is there any better way for the same ?

OT here, but in POSIX you'd have stat() (which would save you the fopen())
and access() (which should be much cheaper as it doesn't have to fill the
entire struct stat).

Well, if you have a file handle to pass to fstat(), I think we can
pretty much agree that the file exists. (Even if POSIX is OT here.)

:-)

And, if I recall, a discussion in the past noted that a failed access()
call doesn't necessarily mean the file doesn't exist. (For example,
you may simply not have permission to check for the existence.) Also,
there was a discussion about some sort of "cryptograp hic filesystem"(?)
in which the existence of a file cannot be determined.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer .h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th***** ********@gmail. com>

[Joachim Schmitz]

"Kenneth Brody" <ke******@spamc op.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:47******** *******@spamcop .net...

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>>
"solarisss" <sa************ **@gmail.comsch rieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d6******* *************** ************@s1 9g2000prg.googl egroups.com...

>I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^

I think fstat is too costly for this.
Is there any better way for the same ?

OT here, but in POSIX you'd have stat() (which would save you the
fopen())
and access() (which should be much cheaper as it doesn't have to fill the
entire struct stat).

Well, if you have a file handle to pass to fstat(), I think we can
pretty much agree that the file exists. (Even if POSIX is OT here.)

:-)

Oops...

And, if I recall, a discussion in the past noted that a failed access()
call doesn't necessarily mean the file doesn't exist. (For example,
you may simply not have permission to check for the existence.) Also,

Very true, so you would have to check errno in case access() returns a -1.

printf("%s does%s exist\n", filename, ((access(filena me) == -1) && (errno==
ENOFILE))? "n't":"");

The same is true for stat BTW(). And for fstat() resp. the open() it needs.

Bye, Jojo

[Kenneth Brody]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

>
"Kenneth Brody" <ke******@spamc op.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:47******** *******@spamcop .net...

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

[... use fstat() to check for file existence ...]

Well, if you have a file handle to pass to fstat(), I think we can
pretty much agree that the file exists. (Even if POSIX is OT here.)

:-)

Oops...

And, if I recall, a discussion in the past noted that a failed access()
call doesn't necessarily mean the file doesn't exist. (For example,
you may simply not have permission to check for the existence.) Also,

Very true, so you would have to check errno in case access() returns a -1.

printf("%s does%s exist\n", filename, ((access(filena me) == -1) && (errno==
ENOFILE))? "n't":"");

The same is true for stat BTW(). And for fstat() resp. the open() it needs.

(I'm not sure why we're discussing POSIX here, but...)

What if the file doesn't exist in a directory to which you do not
have the proper permissions? I believe the error will be EPERM
(or, at least, not ENOFILE), and you will display "does exist".

The point is, an error other than ENOFILE does not imply that the
file does exist. I believe the same holds true for stat() et al.
The only thing you can reliably check for is whether you can open
the file, by seeing what fopen() returns. (Yes, you can use
something like access() to see if you have permission to a file
_at_the_time_yo u_call_access() _, but you have race conditions to
take into account.)

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer .h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th***** ********@gmail. com>

[Keith Thompson]

solarisss <sa************ **@gmail.comwri tes:

I have thousands of files whose exitence needs to be checked.
I think fstat is too costly for this.
Is there any better way for the same ?

Since fstat() is defined by POSIX, I suggest that comp.unix.progr ammer
would provide better answers to your question.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <ks***@mib.or g>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"