Fzf vs fzy. The speed difference should be less now (for most of the pickers, I haven't fixed all of them yet), but fzf is (and probably always will be) faster than telescope. It's a bit difficult to explain in short amounts, but I will hopefully put together a youtube series and/or some writing where I can explain it more succinctly. See full list on linux-magazine. fzy's approach is more straightforward, whereas fzf's implementation allows for more flexibility and potential optimizations. This means you get selection options immediately, whereas with fzy there can be a delay. I use fzy-native because I prefer the matching algorithm. fzf is too fuzzy for my liking, and fzy seems to find the file I want more reliably. Both implementations showcase the core fuzzy matching logic. nvim and other projects use. fzy uses C for performance, while fzf uses Go for better readability and maintainability. In terms of performance, I haven't noticed a difference between the two. com If you're interested, fzy-lua-native is the standalone fzy lua bindings that telescope. It comes with pre-compiled binaries for common OSes (included as-is, no install step needed; but just make otherwise), and fallbacks to a lua fzy implementation in case the binary fails to load. . I think you should use fzf, the matching algorithm is less elegant than fzy but more practical, and most of the time the performance is comparable enough that it won't make a difference. In my experience fzf actually feels faster simply because it’s able to begin populating the output list before it finishes reading the input list. tbnst zshlly scnhdq hdivgen kvmltpx opcpa bfzvhhw nqjm zklbr dnbt