Related
I need to create a bash script that creates 100 files with random numbers in them.
I tried to do it using:
for i in {1..100}; do $RANDOM > RANDOM.txt
I don't know if that's the correct way to do it.
And then I need to give the files reading writing and execution permissions based on the number inside the file. No idea how to do that.
I tried using:
if [ $i%2==0 ]
then
echo chmod +rw $RANDOM.txt
but that doesn't seem to work
Just got some feedback, it turns out I was doing everything wrong.
I had to create 100 files 1.txt to 100.txt I used touch {1..100}.txt and then paste 1 random number in each of those files. Should I use echo or shuf to do this?
I think it'd be simplest to use chmod with octal permissions, like 0777 for rwxrwxrwx etc.
Example:
#!/bin/bash
for((i=0; i<100; ++i)) {
rnd=$RANDOM # pick a random number
(( perm = rnd % 512 )) # make it in the range [0, 512) (0000-0777 oct)
printf -v octperm "%04o" $perm # convert to octal
file=$rnd.txt # not sure if you meant to name it after the number
echo $rnd > $file
chmod $octperm $file # chmod with octal number
}
Excerpt of files:
-r-xrw--wx 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 6515.txt
---x-wxrwx 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 6751.txt
-rwx-w--w- 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 8146.txt
-rw-r----- 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 8608.txt
--w--w---x 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 8849.txt
--wx----wx 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 8899.txt
--wxrwx-wx 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 8955.txt
-rw-r-xrw- 1 ted users 5 15 dec 17.53 9134.txt
...
If you want to take your current umask into consideration, you could do that too, by masking away the bits in the permission indicated by the umask.
#!/bin/bash
(( um = ~$(umask) )) # bitwise negated umask
for((i=0; i<100; ++i)) {
rnd=$RANDOM
(( perm = (rnd % 01000) & um )) # [0000,0777] bitwise AND umask
printf -v octperm "%04o" $perm
file=$i.$rnd.txt # using $i. to make name unique
echo $rnd > $file
chmod $octperm $file
}
If your umask is currently 0022 the above example would not create any files writeable for group and/or others while the other (normal) permissions would be random.
First, you need to echo the random number, not use it as a command.
Second, if you want to use the same random number as the filename and content, you need to save it to a variable. Otherwise you'll get a different number each time you write $RANDOM.
Third, that's not how you do arithmetic and conditions inside [], any shell scripting tutorial should show the correct way. You can also use a bash arithmetic expression with (( expression )).
#!/bin/bash
for i in {1..100}
do
r=$RANDOM
echo "$r" > "$r.txt"
if (( i % 2 == 0 ))
then
chmod +rw "$r.txt"
fi
done
From Ted Lyngmo's answer
With some bashisms, like using integer variables properties and avoiding forks...
declare -i um=" ~$(umask) " i rnd perm
for((i=100;i--;)){
rnd=RANDOM
perm=' ( rnd % 01000 ) & um '
printf -v file file-%03d-%04X.txt $i $rnd
printf -v octperm "%04o" "$perm"
echo "$rnd" > "$file"
chmod "$octperm" "$file"
}
(Filename is built with file number as decimal AND random number in hexadecimal)
About performances
Maybe a little quicker, because of avoiding forks and using integers.
( The for((;;)){ ;} syntax used here is not quicker, just different (shorter)...
In fact, for ((i=100;i--;)) ;do ...;done is (insensibly) slower than for i in {1..100};do ...;done! I just wanted to use this unusual syntax for extreme bashism... ;)
Some comparison:
export TIMEFORMAT=$'(%U + %S) / \e[1m%R\e[0m : %P'
About forks, trying 1'000 variable assignment for formatting, using printf:
time for i in {1..1000};do var=$(printf "foo");done
(0.773 + 0.347) / 1.058 : 105.93
time for i in {1..1000};do printf -v var "foo";done
(0.006 + 0.000) / 0.006 : 99.80
From 1.5 seconds to 6 milliseconds on my host!!! There are no discussion: forks (syntax $(printf...)) is to be avoided!!
About integer properties (using 100'000 binary operations):
declare -i intvar
time for i in {1..100000};do var=$(( ( 431214 % 01000 ) & -19 ));done
(0.272 + 0.005) / 0.278 : 99.46
time for i in {1..100000};do intvar=' ( 431214 % 01000 ) & -19 ';done
(0.209 + 0.000) / 0.209 : 99.87
From 0,28 seconds to 0.21 seconds, this is less significant, but.
About for i in { vs for ((i= (now using 1'000'000 loops):
time for i in {1..1000000};do :;done
(1.600 + 0.000) / 1.602 : 99.86
time for ((i=1000000;i--;));do :;done
(1.880 + 0.001) / 1.882 : 99.95
But this is clearly less significant (care about memory consumtion, using braces).
With awk, you could try following once. This program also take care of closing the open files in backend(in case we get error "too many files opened" once). Written and tested in GNU awk.
awk -v numberOfFiles="100" '
BEGIN{
srand()
for(i=1;i<=numberOfFiles;i++){
out=(int(1 + rand() * 10000))
print out > (out".txt")
system("chmod +rw " out".txt")
close(out)
}
}'
I have created an awk variable named numberOfFiles where I have given 100(as per need to create 100 files), you can keep it as per your need too, in future if you need to change it and we need not to change anything in rest of program here.
Is there a "canonical" way of doing that? I've been using head -n | tail -1 which does the trick, but I've been wondering if there's a Bash tool that specifically extracts a line (or a range of lines) from a file.
By "canonical" I mean a program whose main function is doing that.
head and pipe with tail will be slow for a huge file. I would suggest sed like this:
sed 'NUMq;d' file
Where NUM is the number of the line you want to print; so, for example, sed '10q;d' file to print the 10th line of file.
Explanation:
NUMq will quit immediately when the line number is NUM.
d will delete the line instead of printing it; this is inhibited on the last line because the q causes the rest of the script to be skipped when quitting.
If you have NUM in a variable, you will want to use double quotes instead of single:
sed "${NUM}q;d" file
sed -n '2p' < file.txt
will print 2nd line
sed -n '2011p' < file.txt
2011th line
sed -n '10,33p' < file.txt
line 10 up to line 33
sed -n '1p;3p' < file.txt
1st and 3th line
and so on...
For adding lines with sed, you can check this:
sed: insert a line in a certain position
I have a unique situation where I can benchmark the solutions proposed on this page, and so I'm writing this answer as a consolidation of the proposed solutions with included run times for each.
Set Up
I have a 3.261 gigabyte ASCII text data file with one key-value pair per row. The file contains 3,339,550,320 rows in total and defies opening in any editor I have tried, including my go-to Vim. I need to subset this file in order to investigate some of the values that I've discovered only start around row ~500,000,000.
Because the file has so many rows:
I need to extract only a subset of the rows to do anything useful with the data.
Reading through every row leading up to the values I care about is going to take a long time.
If the solution reads past the rows I care about and continues reading the rest of the file it will waste time reading almost 3 billion irrelevant rows and take 6x longer than necessary.
My best-case-scenario is a solution that extracts only a single line from the file without reading any of the other rows in the file, but I can't think of how I would accomplish this in Bash.
For the purposes of my sanity I'm not going to be trying to read the full 500,000,000 lines I'd need for my own problem. Instead I'll be trying to extract row 50,000,000 out of 3,339,550,320 (which means reading the full file will take 60x longer than necessary).
I will be using the time built-in to benchmark each command.
Baseline
First let's see how the head tail solution:
$ time head -50000000 myfile.ascii | tail -1
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m15.321s
The baseline for row 50 million is 00:01:15.321, if I'd gone straight for row 500 million it'd probably be ~12.5 minutes.
cut
I'm dubious of this one, but it's worth a shot:
$ time cut -f50000000 -d$'\n' myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 5m12.156s
This one took 00:05:12.156 to run, which is much slower than the baseline! I'm not sure whether it read through the entire file or just up to line 50 million before stopping, but regardless this doesn't seem like a viable solution to the problem.
AWK
I only ran the solution with the exit because I wasn't going to wait for the full file to run:
$ time awk 'NR == 50000000 {print; exit}' myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m16.583s
This code ran in 00:01:16.583, which is only ~1 second slower, but still not an improvement on the baseline. At this rate if the exit command had been excluded it would have probably taken around ~76 minutes to read the entire file!
Perl
I ran the existing Perl solution as well:
$ time perl -wnl -e '$.== 50000000 && print && exit;' myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m13.146s
This code ran in 00:01:13.146, which is ~2 seconds faster than the baseline. If I'd run it on the full 500,000,000 it would probably take ~12 minutes.
sed
The top answer on the board, here's my result:
$ time sed "50000000q;d" myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m12.705s
This code ran in 00:01:12.705, which is 3 seconds faster than the baseline, and ~0.4 seconds faster than Perl. If I'd run it on the full 500,000,000 rows it would have probably taken ~12 minutes.
mapfile
I have bash 3.1 and therefore cannot test the mapfile solution.
Conclusion
It looks like, for the most part, it's difficult to improve upon the head tail solution. At best the sed solution provides a ~3% increase in efficiency.
(percentages calculated with the formula % = (runtime/baseline - 1) * 100)
Row 50,000,000
00:01:12.705 (-00:00:02.616 = -3.47%) sed
00:01:13.146 (-00:00:02.175 = -2.89%) perl
00:01:15.321 (+00:00:00.000 = +0.00%) head|tail
00:01:16.583 (+00:00:01.262 = +1.68%) awk
00:05:12.156 (+00:03:56.835 = +314.43%) cut
Row 500,000,000
00:12:07.050 (-00:00:26.160) sed
00:12:11.460 (-00:00:21.750) perl
00:12:33.210 (+00:00:00.000) head|tail
00:12:45.830 (+00:00:12.620) awk
00:52:01.560 (+00:40:31.650) cut
Row 3,338,559,320
01:20:54.599 (-00:03:05.327) sed
01:21:24.045 (-00:02:25.227) perl
01:23:49.273 (+00:00:00.000) head|tail
01:25:13.548 (+00:02:35.735) awk
05:47:23.026 (+04:24:26.246) cut
With awk it is pretty fast:
awk 'NR == num_line' file
When this is true, the default behaviour of awk is performed: {print $0}.
Alternative versions
If your file happens to be huge, you'd better exit after reading the required line. This way you save CPU time See time comparison at the end of the answer.
awk 'NR == num_line {print; exit}' file
If you want to give the line number from a bash variable you can use:
awk 'NR == n' n=$num file
awk -v n=$num 'NR == n' file # equivalent
See how much time is saved by using exit, specially if the line happens to be in the first part of the file:
# Let's create a 10M lines file
for ((i=0; i<100000; i++)); do echo "bla bla"; done > 100Klines
for ((i=0; i<100; i++)); do cat 100Klines; done > 10Mlines
$ time awk 'NR == 1234567 {print}' 10Mlines
bla bla
real 0m1.303s
user 0m1.246s
sys 0m0.042s
$ time awk 'NR == 1234567 {print; exit}' 10Mlines
bla bla
real 0m0.198s
user 0m0.178s
sys 0m0.013s
So the difference is 0.198s vs 1.303s, around 6x times faster.
According to my tests, in terms of performance and readability my recommendation is:
tail -n+N | head -1
N is the line number that you want. For example, tail -n+7 input.txt | head -1 will print the 7th line of the file.
tail -n+N will print everything starting from line N, and head -1 will make it stop after one line.
The alternative head -N | tail -1 is perhaps slightly more readable. For example, this will print the 7th line:
head -7 input.txt | tail -1
When it comes to performance, there is not much difference for smaller sizes, but it will be outperformed by the tail | head (from above) when the files become huge.
The top-voted sed 'NUMq;d' is interesting to know, but I would argue that it will be understood by fewer people out of the box than the head/tail solution and it is also slower than tail/head.
In my tests, both tails/heads versions outperformed sed 'NUMq;d' consistently. That is in line with the other benchmarks that were posted. It is hard to find a case where tails/heads was really bad. It is also not surprising, as these are operations that you would expect to be heavily optimized in a modern Unix system.
To get an idea about the performance differences, these are the number that I get for a huge file (9.3G):
tail -n+N | head -1: 3.7 sec
head -N | tail -1: 4.6 sec
sed Nq;d: 18.8 sec
Results may differ, but the performance head | tail and tail | head is, in general, comparable for smaller inputs, and sed is always slower by a significant factor (around 5x or so).
To reproduce my benchmark, you can try the following, but be warned that it will create a 9.3G file in the current working directory:
#!/bin/bash
readonly file=tmp-input.txt
readonly size=1000000000
readonly pos=500000000
readonly retries=3
seq 1 $size > $file
echo "*** head -N | tail -1 ***"
for i in $(seq 1 $retries) ; do
time head "-$pos" $file | tail -1
done
echo "-------------------------"
echo
echo "*** tail -n+N | head -1 ***"
echo
seq 1 $size > $file
ls -alhg $file
for i in $(seq 1 $retries) ; do
time tail -n+$pos $file | head -1
done
echo "-------------------------"
echo
echo "*** sed Nq;d ***"
echo
seq 1 $size > $file
ls -alhg $file
for i in $(seq 1 $retries) ; do
time sed $pos'q;d' $file
done
/bin/rm $file
Here is the output of a run on my machine (ThinkPad X1 Carbon with an SSD and 16G of memory). I assume in the final run everything will come from the cache, not from disk:
*** head -N | tail -1 ***
500000000
real 0m9,800s
user 0m7,328s
sys 0m4,081s
500000000
real 0m4,231s
user 0m5,415s
sys 0m2,789s
500000000
real 0m4,636s
user 0m5,935s
sys 0m2,684s
-------------------------
*** tail -n+N | head -1 ***
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil 9,3G Jan 19 19:49 tmp-input.txt
500000000
real 0m6,452s
user 0m3,367s
sys 0m1,498s
500000000
real 0m3,890s
user 0m2,921s
sys 0m0,952s
500000000
real 0m3,763s
user 0m3,004s
sys 0m0,760s
-------------------------
*** sed Nq;d ***
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil 9,3G Jan 19 19:50 tmp-input.txt
500000000
real 0m23,675s
user 0m21,557s
sys 0m1,523s
500000000
real 0m20,328s
user 0m18,971s
sys 0m1,308s
500000000
real 0m19,835s
user 0m18,830s
sys 0m1,004s
Wow, all the possibilities!
Try this:
sed -n "${lineNum}p" $file
or one of these depending upon your version of Awk:
awk -vlineNum=$lineNum 'NR == lineNum {print $0}' $file
awk -v lineNum=4 '{if (NR == lineNum) {print $0}}' $file
awk '{if (NR == lineNum) {print $0}}' lineNum=$lineNum $file
(You may have to try the nawk or gawk command).
Is there a tool that only does the print that particular line? Not one of the standard tools. However, sed is probably the closest and simplest to use.
Save two keystrokes, print Nth line without using bracket:
sed -n Np <fileName>
^ ^
\ \___ 'p' for printing
\______ '-n' for not printing by default
For example, to print 100th line:
sed -n 100p foo.txt
This question being tagged Bash, here's the Bash (≥4) way of doing: use mapfile with the -s (skip) and -n (count) option.
If you need to get the 42nd line of a file file:
mapfile -s 41 -n 1 ary < file
At this point, you'll have an array ary the fields of which containing the lines of file (including the trailing newline), where we have skipped the first 41 lines (-s 41), and stopped after reading one line (-n 1). So that's really the 42nd line. To print it out:
printf '%s' "${ary[0]}"
If you need a range of lines, say the range 42–666 (inclusive), and say you don't want to do the math yourself, and print them on stdout:
mapfile -s $((42-1)) -n $((666-42+1)) ary < file
printf '%s' "${ary[#]}"
If you need to process these lines too, it's not really convenient to store the trailing newline. In this case use the -t option (trim):
mapfile -t -s $((42-1)) -n $((666-42+1)) ary < file
# do stuff
printf '%s\n' "${ary[#]}"
You can have a function do that for you:
print_file_range() {
# $1-$2 is the range of file $3 to be printed to stdout
local ary
mapfile -s $(($1-1)) -n $(($2-$1+1)) ary < "$3"
printf '%s' "${ary[#]}"
}
No external commands, only Bash builtins!
You may also used sed print and quit:
sed -n '10{p;q;}' file # print line 10
You can also use Perl for this:
perl -wnl -e '$.== NUM && print && exit;' some.file
As a followup to CaffeineConnoisseur's very helpful benchmarking answer... I was curious as to how fast the 'mapfile' method was compared to others (as that wasn't tested), so I tried a quick-and-dirty speed comparison myself as I do have bash 4 handy. Threw in a test of the "tail | head" method (rather than head | tail) mentioned in one of the comments on the top answer while I was at it, as folks are singing its praises. I don't have anything nearly the size of the testfile used; the best I could find on short notice was a 14M pedigree file (long lines that are whitespace-separated, just under 12000 lines).
Short version: mapfile appears faster than the cut method, but slower than everything else, so I'd call it a dud. tail | head, OTOH, looks like it could be the fastest, although with a file this size the difference is not all that substantial compared to sed.
$ time head -11000 [filename] | tail -1
[output redacted]
real 0m0.117s
$ time cut -f11000 -d$'\n' [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m1.081s
$ time awk 'NR == 11000 {print; exit}' [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m0.058s
$ time perl -wnl -e '$.== 11000 && print && exit;' [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m0.085s
$ time sed "11000q;d" [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m0.031s
$ time (mapfile -s 11000 -n 1 ary < [filename]; echo ${ary[0]})
[output redacted]
real 0m0.309s
$ time tail -n+11000 [filename] | head -n1
[output redacted]
real 0m0.028s
Hope this helps!
The fastest solution for big files is always tail|head, provided that the two distances:
from the start of the file to the starting line. Lets call it S
the distance from the last line to the end of the file. Be it E
are known. Then, we could use this:
mycount="$E"; (( E > S )) && mycount="+$S"
howmany="$(( endline - startline + 1 ))"
tail -n "$mycount"| head -n "$howmany"
howmany is just the count of lines required.
Some more detail in https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/216614/79743
All the above answers directly answer the question. But here's a less direct solution but a potentially more important idea, to provoke thought.
Since line lengths are arbitrary, all the bytes of the file before the nth line need to be read. If you have a huge file or need to repeat this task many times, and this process is time-consuming, then you should seriously think about whether you should be storing your data in a different way in the first place.
The real solution is to have an index, e.g. at the start of the file, indicating the positions where the lines begin. You could use a database format, or just add a table at the start of the file. Alternatively create a separate index file to accompany your large text file.
e.g. you might create a list of character positions for newlines:
awk 'BEGIN{c=0;print(c)}{c+=length()+1;print(c+1)}' file.txt > file.idx
then read with tail, which actually seeks directly to the appropriate point in the file!
e.g. to get line 1000:
tail -c +$(awk 'NR=1000' file.idx) file.txt | head -1
This may not work with 2-byte / multibyte characters, since awk is "character-aware" but tail is not.
I haven't tested this against a large file.
Also see this answer.
Alternatively - split your file into smaller files!
If you got multiple lines by delimited by \n (normally new line). You can use 'cut' as well:
echo "$data" | cut -f2 -d$'\n'
You will get the 2nd line from the file. -f3 gives you the 3rd line.
Using what others mentioned, I wanted this to be a quick & dandy function in my bash shell.
Create a file: ~/.functions
Add to it the contents:
getline() {
line=$1
sed $line'q;d' $2
}
Then add this to your ~/.bash_profile:
source ~/.functions
Now when you open a new bash window, you can just call the function as so:
getline 441 myfile.txt
Lots of good answers already. I personally go with awk. For convenience, if you use bash, just add the below to your ~/.bash_profile. And, the next time you log in (or if you source your .bash_profile after this update), you will have a new nifty "nth" function available to pipe your files through.
Execute this or put it in your ~/.bash_profile (if using bash) and reopen bash (or execute source ~/.bach_profile)
# print just the nth piped in line
nth () { awk -vlnum=${1} 'NR==lnum {print; exit}'; }
Then, to use it, simply pipe through it. E.g.,:
$ yes line | cat -n | nth 5
5 line
To print nth line using sed with a variable as line number:
a=4
sed -e $a'q:d' file
Here the '-e' flag is for adding script to command to be executed.
After taking a look at the top answer and the benchmark, I've implemented a tiny helper function:
function nth {
if (( ${#} < 1 || ${#} > 2 )); then
echo -e "usage: $0 \e[4mline\e[0m [\e[4mfile\e[0m]"
return 1
fi
if (( ${#} > 1 )); then
sed "$1q;d" $2
else
sed "$1q;d"
fi
}
Basically you can use it in two fashions:
nth 42 myfile.txt
do_stuff | nth 42
This is not a bash solution, but I found out that top choices didn't satisfy my needs, eg,
sed 'NUMq;d' file
was fast enough, but was hanging for hours and did not tell about any progress. I suggest compiling this cpp program and using it to find the row you want. You can compile it with g++ main.cpp, where main.cpp is the file with the content below. I got a.out and executed it with ./a.out
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <fstream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string filename;
cout << "Enter filename ";
cin >> filename;
int needed_row_number;
cout << "Enter row number ";
cin >> needed_row_number;
int progress_line_count;
cout << "Enter at which every number of rows to monitor progress ";
cin >> progress_line_count;
char ch;
int row_counter = 1;
fstream fin(filename, fstream::in);
while (fin >> noskipws >> ch) {
int ch_int = (int) ch;
if (row_counter == needed_row_number) {
cout << ch;
}
if (ch_int == 10) {
if (row_counter == needed_row_number) {
return 0;
}
row_counter++;
if (row_counter % progress_line_count == 0) {
cout << "Progress: line " << row_counter << endl;
}
}
}
return 0;
}
To get an nth line (single line)
If you want something that you can later customize without having to deal with bash you can compile this c program and drop the binary in your custom binaries directory. This assumes that you know how to edit the .bashrc file
accordingly (only if you want to edit your path variable), If you don't know, this is a helpful link.
To run this code use (assuming you named the binary "line").
line [target line] [target file]
example
line 2 somefile.txt
The code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
if(argc != 3){
fprintf(stderr, "line needs a line number and a file name");
exit(0);
}
int lineNumber = atoi(argv[1]);
int counter = 0;
char *fileName = argv[2];
FILE *fileReader = fopen(fileName, "r");
if(fileReader == NULL){
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to open file");
exit(0);
}
size_t lineSize = 0;
char* line = NULL;
while(counter < lineNumber){
getline(&line, &linesize, fileReader);
counter++
}
getline(&line, &lineSize, fileReader);
printf("%s\n", line);
fclose(fileReader);
return 0;
}
EDIT: removed the fseek and replaced it with a while loop
I've put some of the above answers into a short bash script that you can put into a file called get.sh and link to /usr/local/bin/get (or whatever other name you prefer).
#!/bin/bash
if [ "${1}" == "" ]; then
echo "error: blank line number";
exit 1
fi
re='^[0-9]+$'
if ! [[ $1 =~ $re ]] ; then
echo "error: line number arg not a number";
exit 1
fi
if [ "${2}" == "" ]; then
echo "error: blank file name";
exit 1
fi
sed "${1}q;d" $2;
exit 0
Ensure it's executable with
$ chmod +x get
Link it to make it available on the PATH with
$ ln -s get.sh /usr/local/bin/get
UPDATE 1 : found much faster method in awk
just 5.353 secs to obtain a row above 133.6 mn :
rownum='133668997'; ( time ( pvE0 < ~/master_primelist_18a.txt |
LC_ALL=C mawk2 -F'^$' -v \_="${rownum}" -- '!_{exit}!--_' ) )
in0: 5.45GiB 0:00:05 [1.02GiB/s] [1.02GiB/s] [======> ] 71%
( pvE 0.1 in0 < ~/master_primelist_18a.txt |
LC_ALL=C mawk2 -F'^$' -v -- ; ) 5.01s user
1.21s system 116% cpu 5.353 total
77.37219=195591955519519519559551=0x296B0FA7D668C4A64F7F=
===============================================
I'd like to contest the notion that perl is faster than awk :
so while my test file isn't nearly quite as many rows, it's also twice the size, at 7.58 GB -
I even gave perl some built-in advantageous - like hard-coding in the row number, and also going second, thus gaining any potential speedups from OS caching mechanism, if any
f="$( grealpath -ePq ~/master_primelist_18a.txt )"
rownum='133668997'
fg;fg; pv < "${f}" | gwc -lcm
echo; sleep 2;
echo;
( time ( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" |
LC_ALL=C mawk2 '_{exit}_=NR==+__' FS='^$' __="${rownum}"
) ) | mawk 'BEGIN { print } END { print _ } NR'
sleep 2
( time ( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" |
LC_ALL=C perl -wnl -e '$.== 133668997 && print && exit;'
) ) | mawk 'BEGIN { print } END { print _ } NR' ;
fg: no current job
fg: no current job
7.58GiB 0:00:28 [ 275MiB/s] [============>] 100%
148,110,134 8,134,435,629 8,134,435,629 <<<< rows, chars, and bytes
count as reported by gnu-wc
in0: 5.45GiB 0:00:07 [ 701MiB/s] [=> ] 71%
( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" | LC_ALL=C mawk2 '_{exit}_=NR==+__' FS='^$' ; )
6.22s user 2.56s system 110% cpu 7.966 total
77.37219=195591955519519519559551=0x296B0FA7D668C4A64F7F=
in0: 5.45GiB 0:00:17 [ 328MiB/s] [=> ] 71%
( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" | LC_ALL=C perl -wnl -e ; )
14.22s user 3.31s system 103% cpu 17.014 total
77.37219=195591955519519519559551=0x296B0FA7D668C4A64F7F=
I can re-run the test with perl 5.36 or even perl-6 if u think it's gonna make a difference (haven't installed either), but a gap of
7.966 secs (mawk2) vs. 17.014 secs (perl 5.34)
between the two, with the latter more than double the prior, it seems clear which one is indeed meaningfully faster to fetch a single row way deep in ASCII files.
This is perl 5, version 34, subversion 0 (v5.34.0) built for darwin-thread-multi-2level
Copyright 1987-2021, Larry Wall
mawk 1.9.9.6, 21 Aug 2016, Copyright Michael D. Brennan
I've a program writing some ASCII-output to a named pipe (fifo). I'm trying to measure the throughput of several compression-tools. Therefore I'm using the following statement:
cat fifo | gzip -c -1 | pv -b -t -r -a > file.gz
And also:
cat file | gzip -c -1 | pv -b -t -r -a > file.gz
My question is why is the average throughput from reading the file directly so much higher than reading from a named pipe. The program has an average throughput of 80MB/s when writing unzipped data to disk, so I do not think this is the bottleneck.
Gzip has an average throughput of 5 MB/s when reading from file and about 2 - 2,5 MB/s when reading the output of the program from the named pipe. Other tools even slow down much more (e.g. ltop: file = 9 MB/s; pipe = 3 MB/s).I tried buffering the output to 4K and 16K blocks before piping it to gzip but nothing changed.
So what can I possible do wrong when reading from the named pipe?
Thank in advance
PS: The program used to reproduce the behaviour:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <iostream>
#define SIZE 986
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
char line[SIZE];
size_t size = 0;
FILE *f = fopen(argv[1], "w");
if (f == NULL) {
perror("Could not open pipe");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
cout << "Pipe initialized.\n";
//read from the file line by line
while ((size = fread(&line, 1, SIZE, stdin))) {
fwrite(&line, 1, size, f);
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
Probably not the fifo is slow, but the script what producing the data.
Simple tests on my system.
In one terminal fill's the pipe
mkfifo pipe
seq 10000000 > pipe
and on the second terminal simply read it into the /dev/null
time cat pipe >/dev/null
real 0m6.382s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.204s
Now the "from file" test
seq 10000000 > file
time cat file >/dev/null
real 0m0.047s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.044s
more than 100 times faster!!!
But try:
time seq 10000000 > /dev/null
real 0m6.875s
user 0m6.365s
sys 0m0.026s
SLOW, the same time as "reading from pipe". So, not the "pipe is slow" but the command what producing the data.
Proof, on one terminal fill the pipe from the file
cat file > pipe
on the second terminal, read the pipe
time cat pipe >/dev/null
real 0m0.199s
user 0m0.011s
sys 0m0.124s
same fast as the pure time cat file >/dev/null
Is there a "canonical" way of doing that? I've been using head -n | tail -1 which does the trick, but I've been wondering if there's a Bash tool that specifically extracts a line (or a range of lines) from a file.
By "canonical" I mean a program whose main function is doing that.
head and pipe with tail will be slow for a huge file. I would suggest sed like this:
sed 'NUMq;d' file
Where NUM is the number of the line you want to print; so, for example, sed '10q;d' file to print the 10th line of file.
Explanation:
NUMq will quit immediately when the line number is NUM.
d will delete the line instead of printing it; this is inhibited on the last line because the q causes the rest of the script to be skipped when quitting.
If you have NUM in a variable, you will want to use double quotes instead of single:
sed "${NUM}q;d" file
sed -n '2p' < file.txt
will print 2nd line
sed -n '2011p' < file.txt
2011th line
sed -n '10,33p' < file.txt
line 10 up to line 33
sed -n '1p;3p' < file.txt
1st and 3th line
and so on...
For adding lines with sed, you can check this:
sed: insert a line in a certain position
I have a unique situation where I can benchmark the solutions proposed on this page, and so I'm writing this answer as a consolidation of the proposed solutions with included run times for each.
Set Up
I have a 3.261 gigabyte ASCII text data file with one key-value pair per row. The file contains 3,339,550,320 rows in total and defies opening in any editor I have tried, including my go-to Vim. I need to subset this file in order to investigate some of the values that I've discovered only start around row ~500,000,000.
Because the file has so many rows:
I need to extract only a subset of the rows to do anything useful with the data.
Reading through every row leading up to the values I care about is going to take a long time.
If the solution reads past the rows I care about and continues reading the rest of the file it will waste time reading almost 3 billion irrelevant rows and take 6x longer than necessary.
My best-case-scenario is a solution that extracts only a single line from the file without reading any of the other rows in the file, but I can't think of how I would accomplish this in Bash.
For the purposes of my sanity I'm not going to be trying to read the full 500,000,000 lines I'd need for my own problem. Instead I'll be trying to extract row 50,000,000 out of 3,339,550,320 (which means reading the full file will take 60x longer than necessary).
I will be using the time built-in to benchmark each command.
Baseline
First let's see how the head tail solution:
$ time head -50000000 myfile.ascii | tail -1
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m15.321s
The baseline for row 50 million is 00:01:15.321, if I'd gone straight for row 500 million it'd probably be ~12.5 minutes.
cut
I'm dubious of this one, but it's worth a shot:
$ time cut -f50000000 -d$'\n' myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 5m12.156s
This one took 00:05:12.156 to run, which is much slower than the baseline! I'm not sure whether it read through the entire file or just up to line 50 million before stopping, but regardless this doesn't seem like a viable solution to the problem.
AWK
I only ran the solution with the exit because I wasn't going to wait for the full file to run:
$ time awk 'NR == 50000000 {print; exit}' myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m16.583s
This code ran in 00:01:16.583, which is only ~1 second slower, but still not an improvement on the baseline. At this rate if the exit command had been excluded it would have probably taken around ~76 minutes to read the entire file!
Perl
I ran the existing Perl solution as well:
$ time perl -wnl -e '$.== 50000000 && print && exit;' myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m13.146s
This code ran in 00:01:13.146, which is ~2 seconds faster than the baseline. If I'd run it on the full 500,000,000 it would probably take ~12 minutes.
sed
The top answer on the board, here's my result:
$ time sed "50000000q;d" myfile.ascii
pgm_icnt = 0
real 1m12.705s
This code ran in 00:01:12.705, which is 3 seconds faster than the baseline, and ~0.4 seconds faster than Perl. If I'd run it on the full 500,000,000 rows it would have probably taken ~12 minutes.
mapfile
I have bash 3.1 and therefore cannot test the mapfile solution.
Conclusion
It looks like, for the most part, it's difficult to improve upon the head tail solution. At best the sed solution provides a ~3% increase in efficiency.
(percentages calculated with the formula % = (runtime/baseline - 1) * 100)
Row 50,000,000
00:01:12.705 (-00:00:02.616 = -3.47%) sed
00:01:13.146 (-00:00:02.175 = -2.89%) perl
00:01:15.321 (+00:00:00.000 = +0.00%) head|tail
00:01:16.583 (+00:00:01.262 = +1.68%) awk
00:05:12.156 (+00:03:56.835 = +314.43%) cut
Row 500,000,000
00:12:07.050 (-00:00:26.160) sed
00:12:11.460 (-00:00:21.750) perl
00:12:33.210 (+00:00:00.000) head|tail
00:12:45.830 (+00:00:12.620) awk
00:52:01.560 (+00:40:31.650) cut
Row 3,338,559,320
01:20:54.599 (-00:03:05.327) sed
01:21:24.045 (-00:02:25.227) perl
01:23:49.273 (+00:00:00.000) head|tail
01:25:13.548 (+00:02:35.735) awk
05:47:23.026 (+04:24:26.246) cut
With awk it is pretty fast:
awk 'NR == num_line' file
When this is true, the default behaviour of awk is performed: {print $0}.
Alternative versions
If your file happens to be huge, you'd better exit after reading the required line. This way you save CPU time See time comparison at the end of the answer.
awk 'NR == num_line {print; exit}' file
If you want to give the line number from a bash variable you can use:
awk 'NR == n' n=$num file
awk -v n=$num 'NR == n' file # equivalent
See how much time is saved by using exit, specially if the line happens to be in the first part of the file:
# Let's create a 10M lines file
for ((i=0; i<100000; i++)); do echo "bla bla"; done > 100Klines
for ((i=0; i<100; i++)); do cat 100Klines; done > 10Mlines
$ time awk 'NR == 1234567 {print}' 10Mlines
bla bla
real 0m1.303s
user 0m1.246s
sys 0m0.042s
$ time awk 'NR == 1234567 {print; exit}' 10Mlines
bla bla
real 0m0.198s
user 0m0.178s
sys 0m0.013s
So the difference is 0.198s vs 1.303s, around 6x times faster.
According to my tests, in terms of performance and readability my recommendation is:
tail -n+N | head -1
N is the line number that you want. For example, tail -n+7 input.txt | head -1 will print the 7th line of the file.
tail -n+N will print everything starting from line N, and head -1 will make it stop after one line.
The alternative head -N | tail -1 is perhaps slightly more readable. For example, this will print the 7th line:
head -7 input.txt | tail -1
When it comes to performance, there is not much difference for smaller sizes, but it will be outperformed by the tail | head (from above) when the files become huge.
The top-voted sed 'NUMq;d' is interesting to know, but I would argue that it will be understood by fewer people out of the box than the head/tail solution and it is also slower than tail/head.
In my tests, both tails/heads versions outperformed sed 'NUMq;d' consistently. That is in line with the other benchmarks that were posted. It is hard to find a case where tails/heads was really bad. It is also not surprising, as these are operations that you would expect to be heavily optimized in a modern Unix system.
To get an idea about the performance differences, these are the number that I get for a huge file (9.3G):
tail -n+N | head -1: 3.7 sec
head -N | tail -1: 4.6 sec
sed Nq;d: 18.8 sec
Results may differ, but the performance head | tail and tail | head is, in general, comparable for smaller inputs, and sed is always slower by a significant factor (around 5x or so).
To reproduce my benchmark, you can try the following, but be warned that it will create a 9.3G file in the current working directory:
#!/bin/bash
readonly file=tmp-input.txt
readonly size=1000000000
readonly pos=500000000
readonly retries=3
seq 1 $size > $file
echo "*** head -N | tail -1 ***"
for i in $(seq 1 $retries) ; do
time head "-$pos" $file | tail -1
done
echo "-------------------------"
echo
echo "*** tail -n+N | head -1 ***"
echo
seq 1 $size > $file
ls -alhg $file
for i in $(seq 1 $retries) ; do
time tail -n+$pos $file | head -1
done
echo "-------------------------"
echo
echo "*** sed Nq;d ***"
echo
seq 1 $size > $file
ls -alhg $file
for i in $(seq 1 $retries) ; do
time sed $pos'q;d' $file
done
/bin/rm $file
Here is the output of a run on my machine (ThinkPad X1 Carbon with an SSD and 16G of memory). I assume in the final run everything will come from the cache, not from disk:
*** head -N | tail -1 ***
500000000
real 0m9,800s
user 0m7,328s
sys 0m4,081s
500000000
real 0m4,231s
user 0m5,415s
sys 0m2,789s
500000000
real 0m4,636s
user 0m5,935s
sys 0m2,684s
-------------------------
*** tail -n+N | head -1 ***
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil 9,3G Jan 19 19:49 tmp-input.txt
500000000
real 0m6,452s
user 0m3,367s
sys 0m1,498s
500000000
real 0m3,890s
user 0m2,921s
sys 0m0,952s
500000000
real 0m3,763s
user 0m3,004s
sys 0m0,760s
-------------------------
*** sed Nq;d ***
-rw-r--r-- 1 phil 9,3G Jan 19 19:50 tmp-input.txt
500000000
real 0m23,675s
user 0m21,557s
sys 0m1,523s
500000000
real 0m20,328s
user 0m18,971s
sys 0m1,308s
500000000
real 0m19,835s
user 0m18,830s
sys 0m1,004s
Wow, all the possibilities!
Try this:
sed -n "${lineNum}p" $file
or one of these depending upon your version of Awk:
awk -vlineNum=$lineNum 'NR == lineNum {print $0}' $file
awk -v lineNum=4 '{if (NR == lineNum) {print $0}}' $file
awk '{if (NR == lineNum) {print $0}}' lineNum=$lineNum $file
(You may have to try the nawk or gawk command).
Is there a tool that only does the print that particular line? Not one of the standard tools. However, sed is probably the closest and simplest to use.
Save two keystrokes, print Nth line without using bracket:
sed -n Np <fileName>
^ ^
\ \___ 'p' for printing
\______ '-n' for not printing by default
For example, to print 100th line:
sed -n 100p foo.txt
This question being tagged Bash, here's the Bash (≥4) way of doing: use mapfile with the -s (skip) and -n (count) option.
If you need to get the 42nd line of a file file:
mapfile -s 41 -n 1 ary < file
At this point, you'll have an array ary the fields of which containing the lines of file (including the trailing newline), where we have skipped the first 41 lines (-s 41), and stopped after reading one line (-n 1). So that's really the 42nd line. To print it out:
printf '%s' "${ary[0]}"
If you need a range of lines, say the range 42–666 (inclusive), and say you don't want to do the math yourself, and print them on stdout:
mapfile -s $((42-1)) -n $((666-42+1)) ary < file
printf '%s' "${ary[#]}"
If you need to process these lines too, it's not really convenient to store the trailing newline. In this case use the -t option (trim):
mapfile -t -s $((42-1)) -n $((666-42+1)) ary < file
# do stuff
printf '%s\n' "${ary[#]}"
You can have a function do that for you:
print_file_range() {
# $1-$2 is the range of file $3 to be printed to stdout
local ary
mapfile -s $(($1-1)) -n $(($2-$1+1)) ary < "$3"
printf '%s' "${ary[#]}"
}
No external commands, only Bash builtins!
You may also used sed print and quit:
sed -n '10{p;q;}' file # print line 10
You can also use Perl for this:
perl -wnl -e '$.== NUM && print && exit;' some.file
As a followup to CaffeineConnoisseur's very helpful benchmarking answer... I was curious as to how fast the 'mapfile' method was compared to others (as that wasn't tested), so I tried a quick-and-dirty speed comparison myself as I do have bash 4 handy. Threw in a test of the "tail | head" method (rather than head | tail) mentioned in one of the comments on the top answer while I was at it, as folks are singing its praises. I don't have anything nearly the size of the testfile used; the best I could find on short notice was a 14M pedigree file (long lines that are whitespace-separated, just under 12000 lines).
Short version: mapfile appears faster than the cut method, but slower than everything else, so I'd call it a dud. tail | head, OTOH, looks like it could be the fastest, although with a file this size the difference is not all that substantial compared to sed.
$ time head -11000 [filename] | tail -1
[output redacted]
real 0m0.117s
$ time cut -f11000 -d$'\n' [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m1.081s
$ time awk 'NR == 11000 {print; exit}' [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m0.058s
$ time perl -wnl -e '$.== 11000 && print && exit;' [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m0.085s
$ time sed "11000q;d" [filename]
[output redacted]
real 0m0.031s
$ time (mapfile -s 11000 -n 1 ary < [filename]; echo ${ary[0]})
[output redacted]
real 0m0.309s
$ time tail -n+11000 [filename] | head -n1
[output redacted]
real 0m0.028s
Hope this helps!
The fastest solution for big files is always tail|head, provided that the two distances:
from the start of the file to the starting line. Lets call it S
the distance from the last line to the end of the file. Be it E
are known. Then, we could use this:
mycount="$E"; (( E > S )) && mycount="+$S"
howmany="$(( endline - startline + 1 ))"
tail -n "$mycount"| head -n "$howmany"
howmany is just the count of lines required.
Some more detail in https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/216614/79743
All the above answers directly answer the question. But here's a less direct solution but a potentially more important idea, to provoke thought.
Since line lengths are arbitrary, all the bytes of the file before the nth line need to be read. If you have a huge file or need to repeat this task many times, and this process is time-consuming, then you should seriously think about whether you should be storing your data in a different way in the first place.
The real solution is to have an index, e.g. at the start of the file, indicating the positions where the lines begin. You could use a database format, or just add a table at the start of the file. Alternatively create a separate index file to accompany your large text file.
e.g. you might create a list of character positions for newlines:
awk 'BEGIN{c=0;print(c)}{c+=length()+1;print(c+1)}' file.txt > file.idx
then read with tail, which actually seeks directly to the appropriate point in the file!
e.g. to get line 1000:
tail -c +$(awk 'NR=1000' file.idx) file.txt | head -1
This may not work with 2-byte / multibyte characters, since awk is "character-aware" but tail is not.
I haven't tested this against a large file.
Also see this answer.
Alternatively - split your file into smaller files!
If you got multiple lines by delimited by \n (normally new line). You can use 'cut' as well:
echo "$data" | cut -f2 -d$'\n'
You will get the 2nd line from the file. -f3 gives you the 3rd line.
Using what others mentioned, I wanted this to be a quick & dandy function in my bash shell.
Create a file: ~/.functions
Add to it the contents:
getline() {
line=$1
sed $line'q;d' $2
}
Then add this to your ~/.bash_profile:
source ~/.functions
Now when you open a new bash window, you can just call the function as so:
getline 441 myfile.txt
Lots of good answers already. I personally go with awk. For convenience, if you use bash, just add the below to your ~/.bash_profile. And, the next time you log in (or if you source your .bash_profile after this update), you will have a new nifty "nth" function available to pipe your files through.
Execute this or put it in your ~/.bash_profile (if using bash) and reopen bash (or execute source ~/.bach_profile)
# print just the nth piped in line
nth () { awk -vlnum=${1} 'NR==lnum {print; exit}'; }
Then, to use it, simply pipe through it. E.g.,:
$ yes line | cat -n | nth 5
5 line
To print nth line using sed with a variable as line number:
a=4
sed -e $a'q:d' file
Here the '-e' flag is for adding script to command to be executed.
After taking a look at the top answer and the benchmark, I've implemented a tiny helper function:
function nth {
if (( ${#} < 1 || ${#} > 2 )); then
echo -e "usage: $0 \e[4mline\e[0m [\e[4mfile\e[0m]"
return 1
fi
if (( ${#} > 1 )); then
sed "$1q;d" $2
else
sed "$1q;d"
fi
}
Basically you can use it in two fashions:
nth 42 myfile.txt
do_stuff | nth 42
This is not a bash solution, but I found out that top choices didn't satisfy my needs, eg,
sed 'NUMq;d' file
was fast enough, but was hanging for hours and did not tell about any progress. I suggest compiling this cpp program and using it to find the row you want. You can compile it with g++ main.cpp, where main.cpp is the file with the content below. I got a.out and executed it with ./a.out
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <fstream>
using namespace std;
int main() {
string filename;
cout << "Enter filename ";
cin >> filename;
int needed_row_number;
cout << "Enter row number ";
cin >> needed_row_number;
int progress_line_count;
cout << "Enter at which every number of rows to monitor progress ";
cin >> progress_line_count;
char ch;
int row_counter = 1;
fstream fin(filename, fstream::in);
while (fin >> noskipws >> ch) {
int ch_int = (int) ch;
if (row_counter == needed_row_number) {
cout << ch;
}
if (ch_int == 10) {
if (row_counter == needed_row_number) {
return 0;
}
row_counter++;
if (row_counter % progress_line_count == 0) {
cout << "Progress: line " << row_counter << endl;
}
}
}
return 0;
}
To get an nth line (single line)
If you want something that you can later customize without having to deal with bash you can compile this c program and drop the binary in your custom binaries directory. This assumes that you know how to edit the .bashrc file
accordingly (only if you want to edit your path variable), If you don't know, this is a helpful link.
To run this code use (assuming you named the binary "line").
line [target line] [target file]
example
line 2 somefile.txt
The code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
if(argc != 3){
fprintf(stderr, "line needs a line number and a file name");
exit(0);
}
int lineNumber = atoi(argv[1]);
int counter = 0;
char *fileName = argv[2];
FILE *fileReader = fopen(fileName, "r");
if(fileReader == NULL){
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to open file");
exit(0);
}
size_t lineSize = 0;
char* line = NULL;
while(counter < lineNumber){
getline(&line, &linesize, fileReader);
counter++
}
getline(&line, &lineSize, fileReader);
printf("%s\n", line);
fclose(fileReader);
return 0;
}
EDIT: removed the fseek and replaced it with a while loop
I've put some of the above answers into a short bash script that you can put into a file called get.sh and link to /usr/local/bin/get (or whatever other name you prefer).
#!/bin/bash
if [ "${1}" == "" ]; then
echo "error: blank line number";
exit 1
fi
re='^[0-9]+$'
if ! [[ $1 =~ $re ]] ; then
echo "error: line number arg not a number";
exit 1
fi
if [ "${2}" == "" ]; then
echo "error: blank file name";
exit 1
fi
sed "${1}q;d" $2;
exit 0
Ensure it's executable with
$ chmod +x get
Link it to make it available on the PATH with
$ ln -s get.sh /usr/local/bin/get
UPDATE 1 : found much faster method in awk
just 5.353 secs to obtain a row above 133.6 mn :
rownum='133668997'; ( time ( pvE0 < ~/master_primelist_18a.txt |
LC_ALL=C mawk2 -F'^$' -v \_="${rownum}" -- '!_{exit}!--_' ) )
in0: 5.45GiB 0:00:05 [1.02GiB/s] [1.02GiB/s] [======> ] 71%
( pvE 0.1 in0 < ~/master_primelist_18a.txt |
LC_ALL=C mawk2 -F'^$' -v -- ; ) 5.01s user
1.21s system 116% cpu 5.353 total
77.37219=195591955519519519559551=0x296B0FA7D668C4A64F7F=
===============================================
I'd like to contest the notion that perl is faster than awk :
so while my test file isn't nearly quite as many rows, it's also twice the size, at 7.58 GB -
I even gave perl some built-in advantageous - like hard-coding in the row number, and also going second, thus gaining any potential speedups from OS caching mechanism, if any
f="$( grealpath -ePq ~/master_primelist_18a.txt )"
rownum='133668997'
fg;fg; pv < "${f}" | gwc -lcm
echo; sleep 2;
echo;
( time ( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" |
LC_ALL=C mawk2 '_{exit}_=NR==+__' FS='^$' __="${rownum}"
) ) | mawk 'BEGIN { print } END { print _ } NR'
sleep 2
( time ( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" |
LC_ALL=C perl -wnl -e '$.== 133668997 && print && exit;'
) ) | mawk 'BEGIN { print } END { print _ } NR' ;
fg: no current job
fg: no current job
7.58GiB 0:00:28 [ 275MiB/s] [============>] 100%
148,110,134 8,134,435,629 8,134,435,629 <<<< rows, chars, and bytes
count as reported by gnu-wc
in0: 5.45GiB 0:00:07 [ 701MiB/s] [=> ] 71%
( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" | LC_ALL=C mawk2 '_{exit}_=NR==+__' FS='^$' ; )
6.22s user 2.56s system 110% cpu 7.966 total
77.37219=195591955519519519559551=0x296B0FA7D668C4A64F7F=
in0: 5.45GiB 0:00:17 [ 328MiB/s] [=> ] 71%
( pv -i 0.1 -cN in0 < "${f}" | LC_ALL=C perl -wnl -e ; )
14.22s user 3.31s system 103% cpu 17.014 total
77.37219=195591955519519519559551=0x296B0FA7D668C4A64F7F=
I can re-run the test with perl 5.36 or even perl-6 if u think it's gonna make a difference (haven't installed either), but a gap of
7.966 secs (mawk2) vs. 17.014 secs (perl 5.34)
between the two, with the latter more than double the prior, it seems clear which one is indeed meaningfully faster to fetch a single row way deep in ASCII files.
This is perl 5, version 34, subversion 0 (v5.34.0) built for darwin-thread-multi-2level
Copyright 1987-2021, Larry Wall
mawk 1.9.9.6, 21 Aug 2016, Copyright Michael D. Brennan
I am looking for a command that will accept (as input) multiple lines of text, each line containing a single integer, and output the sum of these integers.
As a bit of background, I have a log file which includes timing measurements. Through grepping for the relevant lines and a bit of sed reformatting I can list all of the timings in that file. I would like to work out the total. I can pipe this intermediate output to any command in order to do the final sum. I have always used expr in the past, but unless it runs in RPN mode I do not think it is going to cope with this (and even then it would be tricky).
How can I get the summation of integers?
Bit of awk should do it?
awk '{s+=$1} END {print s}' mydatafile
Note: some versions of awk have some odd behaviours if you are going to be adding anything exceeding 2^31 (2147483647). See comments for more background. One suggestion is to use printf rather than print:
awk '{s+=$1} END {printf "%.0f", s}' mydatafile
Paste typically merges lines of multiple files, but it can also be used to convert individual lines of a file into a single line. The delimiter flag allows you to pass a x+x type equation to bc.
paste -s -d+ infile | bc
Alternatively, when piping from stdin,
<commands> | paste -s -d+ - | bc
The one-liner version in Python:
$ python -c "import sys; print(sum(int(l) for l in sys.stdin))"
I would put a big WARNING on the commonly approved solution:
awk '{s+=$1} END {print s}' mydatafile # DO NOT USE THIS!!
that is because in this form awk uses a 32 bit signed integer representation: it will overflow for sums that exceed 2147483647 (i.e., 2^31).
A more general answer (for summing integers) would be:
awk '{s+=$1} END {printf "%.0f\n", s}' mydatafile # USE THIS INSTEAD
Plain bash:
$ cat numbers.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$ sum=0; while read num; do ((sum += num)); done < numbers.txt; echo $sum
55
With jq:
seq 10 | jq -s 'add' # 'add' is equivalent to 'reduce .[] as $item (0; . + $item)'
dc -f infile -e '[+z1<r]srz1<rp'
Note that negative numbers prefixed with minus sign should be translated for dc, since it uses _ prefix rather than - prefix for that. For example, via tr '-' '_' | dc -f- -e '...'.
Edit: Since this answer got so many votes "for obscurity", here is a detailed explanation:
The expression [+z1<r]srz1<rp does the following:
[ interpret everything to the next ] as a string
+ push two values off the stack, add them and push the result
z push the current stack depth
1 push one
<r pop two values and execute register r if the original top-of-stack (1)
is smaller
] end of the string, will push the whole thing to the stack
sr pop a value (the string above) and store it in register r
z push the current stack depth again
1 push 1
<r pop two values and execute register r if the original top-of-stack (1)
is smaller
p print the current top-of-stack
As pseudo-code:
Define "add_top_of_stack" as:
Remove the two top values off the stack and add the result back
If the stack has two or more values, run "add_top_of_stack" recursively
If the stack has two or more values, run "add_top_of_stack"
Print the result, now the only item left in the stack
To really understand the simplicity and power of dc, here is a working Python script that implements some of the commands from dc and executes a Python version of the above command:
### Implement some commands from dc
registers = {'r': None}
stack = []
def add():
stack.append(stack.pop() + stack.pop())
def z():
stack.append(len(stack))
def less(reg):
if stack.pop() < stack.pop():
registers[reg]()
def store(reg):
registers[reg] = stack.pop()
def p():
print stack[-1]
### Python version of the dc command above
# The equivalent to -f: read a file and push every line to the stack
import fileinput
for line in fileinput.input():
stack.append(int(line.strip()))
def cmd():
add()
z()
stack.append(1)
less('r')
stack.append(cmd)
store('r')
z()
stack.append(1)
less('r')
p()
Pure and short bash.
f=$(cat numbers.txt)
echo $(( ${f//$'\n'/+} ))
perl -lne '$x += $_; END { print $x; }' < infile.txt
My fifteen cents:
$ cat file.txt | xargs | sed -e 's/\ /+/g' | bc
Example:
$ cat text
1
2
3
3
4
5
6
78
9
0
1
2
3
4
576
7
4444
$ cat text | xargs | sed -e 's/\ /+/g' | bc
5148
I've done a quick benchmark on the existing answers which
use only standard tools (sorry for stuff like lua or rocket),
are real one-liners,
are capable of adding huge amounts of numbers (100 million), and
are fast (I ignored the ones which took longer than a minute).
I always added the numbers of 1 to 100 million which was doable on my machine in less than a minute for several solutions.
Here are the results:
Python
:; seq 100000000 | python -c 'import sys; print sum(map(int, sys.stdin))'
5000000050000000
# 30s
:; seq 100000000 | python -c 'import sys; print sum(int(s) for s in sys.stdin)'
5000000050000000
# 38s
:; seq 100000000 | python3 -c 'import sys; print(sum(int(s) for s in sys.stdin))'
5000000050000000
# 27s
:; seq 100000000 | python3 -c 'import sys; print(sum(map(int, sys.stdin)))'
5000000050000000
# 22s
:; seq 100000000 | pypy -c 'import sys; print(sum(map(int, sys.stdin)))'
5000000050000000
# 11s
:; seq 100000000 | pypy -c 'import sys; print(sum(int(s) for s in sys.stdin))'
5000000050000000
# 11s
Awk
:; seq 100000000 | awk '{s+=$1} END {print s}'
5000000050000000
# 22s
Paste & Bc
This ran out of memory on my machine. It worked for half the size of the input (50 million numbers):
:; seq 50000000 | paste -s -d+ - | bc
1250000025000000
# 17s
:; seq 50000001 100000000 | paste -s -d+ - | bc
3750000025000000
# 18s
So I guess it would have taken ~35s for the 100 million numbers.
Perl
:; seq 100000000 | perl -lne '$x += $_; END { print $x; }'
5000000050000000
# 15s
:; seq 100000000 | perl -e 'map {$x += $_} <> and print $x'
5000000050000000
# 48s
Ruby
:; seq 100000000 | ruby -e "puts ARGF.map(&:to_i).inject(&:+)"
5000000050000000
# 30s
C
Just for comparison's sake I compiled the C version and tested this also, just to have an idea how much slower the tool-based solutions are.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
long sum = 0;
long i = 0;
while(scanf("%ld", &i) == 1) {
sum = sum + i;
}
printf("%ld\n", sum);
return 0;
}
:; seq 100000000 | ./a.out
5000000050000000
# 8s
Conclusion
C is of course fastest with 8s, but the Pypy solution only adds a very little overhead of about 30% to 11s. But, to be fair, Pypy isn't exactly standard. Most people only have CPython installed which is significantly slower (22s), exactly as fast as the popular Awk solution.
The fastest solution based on standard tools is Perl (15s).
Using the GNU datamash util:
seq 10 | datamash sum 1
Output:
55
If the input data is irregular, with spaces and tabs at odd places, this may confuse datamash, then either use the -W switch:
<commands...> | datamash -W sum 1
...or use tr to clean up the whitespace:
<commands...> | tr -d '[[:blank:]]' | datamash sum 1
If the input is large enough, the output will be in scientific notation.
seq 100000000 | datamash sum 1
Output:
5.00000005e+15
To convert that to decimal, use the the --format option:
seq 100000000 | datamash --format '%.0f' sum 1
Output:
5000000050000000
Plain bash one liner
$ cat > /tmp/test
1
2
3
4
5
^D
$ echo $(( $(cat /tmp/test | tr "\n" "+" ) 0 ))
BASH solution, if you want to make this a command (e.g. if you need to do this frequently):
addnums () {
local total=0
while read val; do
(( total += val ))
done
echo $total
}
Then usage:
addnums < /tmp/nums
You can using num-utils, although it may be overkill for what you need. This is a set of programs for manipulating numbers in the shell, and can do several nifty things, including of course, adding them up. It's a bit out of date, but they still work and can be useful if you need to do something more.
https://suso.suso.org/programs/num-utils/index.phtml
It's really simple to use:
$ seq 10 | numsum
55
But runs out of memory for large inputs.
$ seq 100000000 | numsum
Terminado (killed)
The following works in bash:
I=0
for N in `cat numbers.txt`
do
I=`expr $I + $N`
done
echo $I
I realize this is an old question, but I like this solution enough to share it.
% cat > numbers.txt
1
2
3
4
5
^D
% cat numbers.txt | perl -lpe '$c+=$_}{$_=$c'
15
If there is interest, I'll explain how it works.
Cannot avoid submitting this, it is the most generic approach to this Question, please check:
jot 1000000 | sed '2,$s/$/+/;$s/$/p/' | dc
It is to be found over here, I was the OP and the answer came from the audience:
Most elegant unix shell one-liner to sum list of numbers of arbitrary precision?
And here are its special advantages over awk, bc, perl, GNU's datamash and friends:
it uses standards utilities common in any unix environment
it does not depend on buffering and thus it does not choke with really long inputs.
it implies no particular precision limits -or integer size for that matter-, hello AWK friends!
no need for different code, if floating point numbers need to be added, instead.
it theoretically runs unhindered in the minimal of environments
sed 's/^/.+/' infile | bc | tail -1
Pure bash and in a one-liner :-)
$ cat numbers.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
$ I=0; for N in $(cat numbers.txt); do I=$(($I + $N)); done; echo $I
55
Alternative pure Perl, fairly readable, no packages or options required:
perl -e "map {$x += $_} <> and print $x" < infile.txt
For Ruby Lovers
ruby -e "puts ARGF.map(&:to_i).inject(&:+)" numbers.txt
Here's a nice and clean Raku (formerly known as Perl 6) one-liner:
say [+] slurp.lines
We can use it like so:
% seq 10 | raku -e "say [+] slurp.lines"
55
It works like this:
slurp without any arguments reads from standard input by default; it returns a string. Calling the lines method on a string returns a list of lines of the string.
The brackets around + turn + into a reduction meta operator which reduces the list to a single value: the sum of the values in the list. say then prints it to standard output with a newline.
One thing to note is that we never explicitly convert the lines to numbers—Raku is smart enough to do that for us. However, this means our code breaks on input that definitely isn't a number:
% echo "1\n2\nnot a number" | raku -e "say [+] slurp.lines"
Cannot convert string to number: base-10 number must begin with valid digits or '.' in '⏏not a number' (indicated by ⏏)
in block <unit> at -e line 1
You can do it in python, if you feel comfortable:
Not tested, just typed:
out = open("filename").read();
lines = out.split('\n')
ints = map(int, lines)
s = sum(ints)
print s
Sebastian pointed out a one liner script:
cat filename | python -c"from fileinput import input; print sum(map(int, input()))"
The following should work (assuming your number is the second field on each line).
awk 'BEGIN {sum=0} \
{sum=sum + $2} \
END {print "tot:", sum}' Yourinputfile.txt
$ cat n
2
4
2
7
8
9
$ perl -MList::Util -le 'print List::Util::sum(<>)' < n
32
Or, you can type in the numbers on the command line:
$ perl -MList::Util -le 'print List::Util::sum(<>)'
1
3
5
^D
9
However, this one slurps the file so it is not a good idea to use on large files. See j_random_hacker's answer which avoids slurping.
One-liner in Racket:
racket -e '(define (g) (define i (read)) (if (eof-object? i) empty (cons i (g)))) (foldr + 0 (g))' < numlist.txt
C (not simplified)
seq 1 10 | tcc -run <(cat << EOF
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
int sum = 0;
int i = 0;
while(scanf("%d", &i) == 1) {
sum = sum + i;
}
printf("%d\n", sum);
return 0;
}
EOF)
My version:
seq -5 10 | xargs printf "- - %s" | xargs | bc
C++ (simplified):
echo {1..10} | scc 'WRL n+=$0; n'
SCC project - http://volnitsky.com/project/scc/
SCC is C++ snippets evaluator at shell prompt