Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than...
by neogoose on Wednesday April 01, 2026 @11:45PM
(#47609753)
I have open sourced the fastest code search implementation. Comprehensive SDK for both file finder and grep file search that is over 100x faster than ripgrep
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than...
by anilakar on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:19AM
(#47610619)
The trick to optimization is not "doing faster" but "doing less". I already feel rg is missing a ton of results I want to see because it has a very large ignore list by default.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than...
by genewitch on Friday April 10, 2026 @12:56PM
(#47720873)
i see this - complaint? - often, but i use grep for finding text in files in the filesystem, like normal people. But specific datasets i'll use ag/rg. As an example, i have transcribed all of the "shows* i have access to for a couple of radio programs, when i want to do exploratory searches, i hit the set once with ag/rg, which takes 7-14 seconds to warm up once, then it's <1ms to search all 1500 text files or whatever.
So while i'm sure ag/rg may be frustrating to use in certain circumstances, by default it works great for searching text files, even structured text files, on disk.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than...
by Yokohiii on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:44AM
(#47611691)
The crate says it uses SIMD, but the crate also says that content search is 20-50 times faster. Maybe the guy unsure how fast it is or how much speedup he should claim to get recognition.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than...
by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:25PM
(#47616586)
it is absolutely amazing experience on mobile if you guys do not understand how to use a search bar and a couple of segmeneted controls -- there is nothing much I can do about it
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than...
by CodesInChaos on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:53AM
(#47611755)
Where can I find the benchmark for the "20-50 times faster than ripgrep" claim from the documentation, or the "100x faster" claim from the HN submission title?
Ripgrep already has optimizations for regex which don't contain any patterns (or even just regex which contain such substrings). So "not regex" shouldn't be what makes the difference.
"FFF stands for freakin fast fuzzy file finder (pick 3) and it is an opinionated fuzzy file picker for your AI agent and Neovim. Just for file search, but we do the file search really fff well.
FFF is a tool for grepping, fuzzy file matching, globbing, and multigrepping with a strong focus on performance and useful search results. For humans - provides an unbelievable typo-resistant experience, for AI agents - implements the fastest file search with additional free memory suggesting the best search results based on various factors like frecency, git status, file size, definition matches, and more."
You should add a link to the GitHub repo for the project itself, at first I wasn't even sure what it was called.
I found this link https://github.com/dmtrKovalenko/fff.nvim
Advertised as "ColGREP Semantic code search for your terminal and your coding agents",
I haven't put it in any harness yet but I probably should.
https://github.com/lightonai/next-plaid/tree/main/colgrep
I've also tried astgrep (also known as sg) but llms really mess up on them. I think you'd need to fine tune.
If anyone has cracked that case I'd love to hear about it
- it has regex, so the title is weird - it definitely wouldn't be 100x faster than rg - its an sdk, so its apples to oranges anyway
I have a lot of use for something that can search ~1GB of text "instantly", but so far nothing beats rg/ag after the data has been moved into RAM.
So while i'm sure ag/rg may be frustrating to use in certain circumstances, by default it works great for searching text files, even structured text files, on disk.
for example ripgrep doesn't do any memory mapping on macos which makes it 2-3x faster just becuase of that
so essentially in this specific case it is over 1000x faster, but the repo size is huge (66G, 500k files)
Which basically runs an IDE headless (Eclipse, Netbeans, VS services,...), the joy of running an IDE + Electron, get to put those cores to use.
http://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12564442
If that's the future then I'll stay in the past with ripgrep.
Ripgrep already has optimizations for regex which don't contain any patterns (or even just regex which contain such substrings). So "not regex" shouldn't be what makes the difference.
https://github.com/dmtrKovalenko/fff.nvim
"FFF stands for freakin fast fuzzy file finder (pick 3) and it is an opinionated fuzzy file picker for your AI agent and Neovim. Just for file search, but we do the file search really fff well.
FFF is a tool for grepping, fuzzy file matching, globbing, and multigrepping with a strong focus on performance and useful search results. For humans - provides an unbelievable typo-resistant experience, for AI agents - implements the fastest file search with additional free memory suggesting the best search results based on various factors like frecency, git status, file size, definition matches, and more."
- C library
- neovim plugin
- MCP server
But not a plain binary, which is the main way ripgrep is directly used (...at least by humans), and compared with.