Performance of nnn vs. ls
I just downloaded `nnn` from apt and I am not seeing this performance at all. `ls` is blazingly faster than `nnn` on this machine. I am seeing a speedup over `ranger`, but both are taking quite a while for a directory with 196388 files in it.<p><pre><code>  time &#x2F;usr&#x2F;bin&#x2F;nnn -S &#x2F;local

  &#x2F;usr&#x2F;bin&#x2F;nnn -S &#x2F;local  0.04s user 0.36s system 15% cpu 2.503 total

  time &#x2F;usr&#x2F;bin&#x2F;ranger &#x2F;local

  &#x2F;usr&#x2F;bin&#x2F;ranger &#x2F;local  0.31s user 0.02s system 12% cpu 2.667 total

  time &#x2F;bin&#x2F;ls &#x2F;local

  &#x2F;bin&#x2F;ls &#x2F;local  0.00s user 0.00s system 86% cpu 0.002 total
</code></pre>
Perhaps this is related to the `$LS_COLORS` environment variable, as discussed in a few other comments? It is set on this machine.<p><pre><code>  echo $LS_COLORS

  no=00:fi=00:di=34:ow=34;40:ln=35:...&lt;many more entries&gt;...:*.sqlite=34:</code></pre>