Technical Guide xz Alone Was 6.19x Slower Than ripgrep -z — Wide Field Part 2: Seven Formats, No External Commands
[Update 2026-10-04] On Windows, ripgrep was faster on some compressed formats "Zero items lost by 1.5× or more…
benchmarking
Technical Guide 
Technical Guide Bundling Costs 1.58x Against ripgrep on Pass One — Wide Field Part 4: 9.77 s After That, and No Rebuild When a File Vanishes
One of them was gone. A source file behind the index I had built to search the whole pile. app.log.9.gz had ag…
Technical Guide 12 Plain and gzip Files in One Command — Wide Field Part 1: 1.62x Behind ripgrep, Then 2.42x Ahead, and Never on Plain Text
[Update 2026-10-04] v1.7.3.6.8 made the second (hot) run faster "On five plain files, uvf is the slower side o…
Technical Guide Searching Compressed Logs Against ugrep, ripgrep and zgrep — On Par the First Time, 0.11–0.12 s in Every Format the Second
[Update 2026-10-04] In v1.7.3.6.9, five plain files are on par too (uvf slightly ahead) "Searching several pla…
Technical Guide Our Windows “Cold” Runs Were a Lie — Part 12: One Harness on Mac, Windows and Linux, Zero Mismatches Against ripgrep and sed
Nothing reads 10 GB in 2.65 seconds. That was the number recorded for a "cold" read of a 10 GB file on Windows…
Technical Guide We Set the Bar Before Measuring — Part 9: Dropping It From 2x to 1.5x Flipped Six of Our Own ripgrep Verdicts
1.28× is not a win. When your own tool comes out 1.28× ahead of the competition, do you get to write "faster"?…