Update benchmark results

Author: sharkdp

README.md

@@ -331,61 +331,45 @@ Options:
 
 ## Benchmark
 
-Let's search my home folder for files that end in `[0-9].jpg`. It contains ~190.000
-subdirectories and about a million files. For averaging and statistical analysis, I'm using
+Let's search my home folder for files that end in `[0-9].jpg`. It contains ~750.000
+subdirectories and about a 4 million files. For averaging and statistical analysis, I'm using
 [hyperfine](https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine). The following benchmarks are performed
 with a "warm"/pre-filled disk-cache (results for a "cold" disk-cache show the same trends).
 
 Let's start with `find`:
 ```
-Benchmark #1: find ~ -iregex '.*[0-9]\.jpg$'
-
-  Time (mean ± σ):      7.236 s ±  0.090 s
-
-  Range (min … max):    7.133 s …  7.385 s
+Benchmark 1: find ~ -iregex '.*[0-9]\.jpg$'
+  Time (mean ± σ):     19.922 s ±  0.109 s
+  Range (min … max):   19.765 s … 20.065 s
 ```
 
 `find` is much faster if it does not need to perform a regular-expression search:
 ```
-Benchmark #2: find ~ -iname '*[0-9].jpg'
-
-  Time (mean ± σ):      3.914 s ±  0.027 s
-
-  Range (min … max):    3.876 s …  3.964 s
+Benchmark 2: find ~ -iname '*[0-9].jpg'
+  Time (mean ± σ):     11.226 s ±  0.104 s
+  Range (min … max):   11.119 s … 11.466 s
 ```
 
-Now let's try the same for `fd`. Note that `fd` *always* performs a regular expression
-search. The options `--hidden` and `--no-ignore` are needed for a fair comparison,
-otherwise `fd` does not have to traverse hidden folders and ignored paths (see below):
+Now let's try the same for `fd`. Note that `fd` performs a regular expression
+search by defautl. The options `-u`/`--unrestricted` option is needed here for
+a fair comparison. Otherwise `fd` does not have to traverse hidden folders and
+ignored paths (see below):
 ```
-Benchmark #3: fd -HI '.*[0-9]\.jpg$' ~
-
-  Time (mean ± σ):     811.6 ms ±  26.9 ms
-
-  Range (min … max):   786.0 ms … 870.7 ms
-```
-For this particular example, `fd` is approximately nine times faster than `find -iregex`
-and about five times faster than `find -iname`. By the way, both tools found the exact
-same 20880 files :smile:.
-
-Finally, let's run `fd` without `--hidden` and `--no-ignore` (this can lead to different
-search results, of course). If *fd* does not have to traverse the hidden and git-ignored
-folders, it is almost an order of magnitude faster:
-```
-Benchmark #4: fd '[0-9]\.jpg$' ~
-
-  Time (mean ± σ):     123.7 ms ±   6.0 ms
-
-  Range (min … max):   118.8 ms … 140.0 ms
+Benchmark 3: fd -u '[0-9]\.jpg$' ~
+  Time (mean ± σ):     854.8 ms ±  10.0 ms
+  Range (min … max):   839.2 ms … 868.9 ms
 ```
+For this particular example, `fd` is approximately **23 times faster** than `find -iregex`
+and about **13 times faster** than `find -iname`. By the way, both tools found the exact
+same 546 files :smile:.
 
-**Note**: This is *one particular* benchmark on *one particular* machine. While I have
-performed quite a lot of different tests (and found consistent results), things might
-be different for you! I encourage everyone to try it out on their own. See
+**Note**: This is *one particular* benchmark on *one particular* machine. While we have
+performed a lot of different tests (and found consistent results), things might
+be different for you! We encourage everyone to try it out on their own. See
 [this repository](https://github.com/sharkdp/fd-benchmarks) for all necessary scripts.
 
-Concerning *fd*'s speed, the main credit goes to the `regex` and `ignore` crates that are also used
-in [ripgrep](https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep) (check it out!).
+Concerning *fd*'s speed, a lot of credit goes to the `regex` and `ignore` crates that are
+also used in [ripgrep](https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep) (check it out!).
 
 ## Troubleshooting