News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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 MaxMonteil on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:10AM (#47609898)
This looks cool!

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

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by siva7 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @01:43AM (#47610395)
I don't get this submission title. Your tool uses regex but the title claims the future is not about regex.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by molszanski on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:35AM (#47610716)
I think it is about input. Before I had to type regex, now I just type text and fuzzy finds more, regex style. Awkward wording, but code seems cool.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:24PM (#47616560)
my tool is not using regex, it can use regex but it is not required
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by jcgrillo on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:07AM (#47611871)
k, but what actually are you talking about?
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by kristopolous on Thursday April 02, 2026 @01:04AM (#47610177)
I ran across this fascinating tool a few days ago researching embedding models on hugging face.

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

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by schrodinger on Thursday April 02, 2026 @01:24AM (#47610292)
How's it work? Embed tokens and use euclidean distance or something?
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by globular-toast on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:05AM (#47610523)
Why is it "for neovim"? Surely such a thing would be useful in many applications?
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by ramon156 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:21AM (#47610639)
Because it's being dishonest from multiple angles.

- 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

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by genewitch on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:14AM (#47610586)
considering that ripgrep has marginal overhead over just reading the files to /dev/null, how exactly does this achieve 100x speedup?

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.

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 hoherd on Thursday April 02, 2026 @08:50PM (#47622114)
alias rg="rg -iuu"
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 @12:19PM (#47616491)
it very much depends on the platform and the operating system

for example ripgrep doesn't do any memory mapping on macos which makes it 2-3x faster just becuase of that

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:23PM (#47616542)
you can try it yourself. ripgrep search for "MAX_FILE_SIZE" in the chromium repo takes 6-7 seconds, with fff it is 20milliseconds

so essentially in this specific case it is over 1000x faster, but the repo size is huge (66G, 500k files)

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by asdfadsfaf on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:33AM (#47610704)
I don't get it how can I search anything but the file name?
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by dig1 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:37AM (#47610732)
ctags, GNU Global and even "ugrep -Q" would like to have a few words with you ;)
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by swiftcoder on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:40AM (#47610761)
Is there a write up of the underlying approach? The summary on the repo mentioned SIMD, but not a whole lot else.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by pjmlp on Thursday April 02, 2026 @02:58AM (#47610889)
It has never been ripgrep for decades for those of us on IDEs.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by gzread on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:32AM (#47611582)
Has there been a general gentle decline in IDEs over the past 15 years or is it just me?
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by pjmlp on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:36AM (#47611615)
Maybe for a generation that has learnt to program with IDE poorly supported languages.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by vovavili on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:00AM (#47611807)
Zed has made me rethink this opinion.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by kzrdude on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:35AM (#47611608)
However, it's coming up on a decade (8 years) of vscode using ripgrep behind the scenes.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by pjmlp on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:39AM (#47611645)
A programmer's editor. However with the right plugins, you get the same IDE capabilities for code searching in Java, C#, C++,...

Which basically runs an IDE headless (Eclipse, Netbeans, VS services,...), the joy of running an IDE + Electron, get to put those cores to use.

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by e12e on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:53AM (#47611750)
To be fair, ripgrep is approximately one decade old, would be tricky to have used it for decades.

http://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12564442

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by forrestthewoods on Thursday April 02, 2026 @03:05AM (#47610946)
Websites that don’t tell me what they’re doing are infuriating. I’m on mobile. This landing page experience is awful.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by stunpix on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:20AM (#47611492)
For desktops it's not different.
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 wiseowise on Thursday April 02, 2026 @03:25AM (#47611101)
The future is lack of scrolling on mobile, and scanning getting stuck, apparently.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by narinciye on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:06AM (#47611863)
You don't miss much, don't worry, it also looks horrible on desktop.
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:20PM (#47616499)
it looks absolutely gorgeous btw but the idea is that you can try the search speed not actually use lmao
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by hugodan on Thursday April 02, 2026 @03:31AM (#47611143)
Why do all vibecoded sites look the same? Same black on neon vibes and button styles
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by self_awareness on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:35AM (#47611610)
I've entered "bazel" and got `shellPrefix.ts` which doesn't relate to bazel in any way.

If that's the future then I'll stay in the past with ripgrep.

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by _blk on Thursday April 02, 2026 @04:57AM (#47611788)
It's O(1) with a correctness of O(0)
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:24PM (#47616569)
you absolutely missed the point
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:18PM (#47616470)
if you would search in the chromium repo you would see the correct match https://fff.dmtrkovalenko.dev/?repo=2&q=bazel
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.

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by jcgrillo on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:06AM (#47611864)
what even is this
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by austinjp on Thursday April 02, 2026 @05:23AM (#47611988)
To save people the digging, here's the git repo:

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."

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by adrian17 on Thursday April 02, 2026 @06:29AM (#47612463)
So the repo builds:

- 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.

Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by neogoose on Thursday April 02, 2026 @12:21PM (#47616507)
because it is meant to be used by the long running sdk not one shot search (this is where all the optimizations are coming from)
Re:The future of code search is not regex – 100x faster than... by JoeDohn on Thursday April 02, 2026 @06:29AM (#47612456)
I saw this yesterday it claims it's faster than Ripgrep, it uses regex and rg : https://github.com/erogol/ngi.