count number of files in directory with a certain name
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
I found this code here https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prompt-HOWTO/x700.html which nicely gives me the number of files in my directory.
ls -1 | wc -l
but I only want to know how many of those files' names start with 2009 (for example 20091210_005037.nc
).
I tried ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
but that slowly lists all the files and does not seem to give me a number.
ls wc
add a comment
|
I found this code here https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prompt-HOWTO/x700.html which nicely gives me the number of files in my directory.
ls -1 | wc -l
but I only want to know how many of those files' names start with 2009 (for example 20091210_005037.nc
).
I tried ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
but that slowly lists all the files and does not seem to give me a number.
ls wc
2
ls
is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given tols
.
– muru
May 28 at 8:51
2
You want to list all 2009-files and then count the output lines:ls 2009* | wc -l
. Jsut remember the names of the command ls = list , wc = word count (-l = lines). Beware of dangers withls
for odd file namings, though. Usingfind
might be saver.
– Fiximan
May 28 at 8:52
1
And the option-1
is not neccessary. For a piped output,-1
is default.
– Philippos
May 28 at 8:53
add a comment
|
I found this code here https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prompt-HOWTO/x700.html which nicely gives me the number of files in my directory.
ls -1 | wc -l
but I only want to know how many of those files' names start with 2009 (for example 20091210_005037.nc
).
I tried ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
but that slowly lists all the files and does not seem to give me a number.
ls wc
I found this code here https://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prompt-HOWTO/x700.html which nicely gives me the number of files in my directory.
ls -1 | wc -l
but I only want to know how many of those files' names start with 2009 (for example 20091210_005037.nc
).
I tried ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
but that slowly lists all the files and does not seem to give me a number.
ls wc
ls wc
asked May 28 at 8:47
JellyseJellyse
1688 bronze badges
1688 bronze badges
2
ls
is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given tols
.
– muru
May 28 at 8:51
2
You want to list all 2009-files and then count the output lines:ls 2009* | wc -l
. Jsut remember the names of the command ls = list , wc = word count (-l = lines). Beware of dangers withls
for odd file namings, though. Usingfind
might be saver.
– Fiximan
May 28 at 8:52
1
And the option-1
is not neccessary. For a piped output,-1
is default.
– Philippos
May 28 at 8:53
add a comment
|
2
ls
is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given tols
.
– muru
May 28 at 8:51
2
You want to list all 2009-files and then count the output lines:ls 2009* | wc -l
. Jsut remember the names of the command ls = list , wc = word count (-l = lines). Beware of dangers withls
for odd file namings, though. Usingfind
might be saver.
– Fiximan
May 28 at 8:52
1
And the option-1
is not neccessary. For a piped output,-1
is default.
– Philippos
May 28 at 8:53
2
2
ls
is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given to ls
.– muru
May 28 at 8:51
ls
is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given to ls
.– muru
May 28 at 8:51
2
2
You want to list all 2009-files and then count the output lines:
ls 2009* | wc -l
. Jsut remember the names of the command ls = list , wc = word count (-l = lines). Beware of dangers with ls
for odd file namings, though. Using find
might be saver.– Fiximan
May 28 at 8:52
You want to list all 2009-files and then count the output lines:
ls 2009* | wc -l
. Jsut remember the names of the command ls = list , wc = word count (-l = lines). Beware of dangers with ls
for odd file namings, though. Using find
might be saver.– Fiximan
May 28 at 8:52
1
1
And the option
-1
is not neccessary. For a piped output, -1
is default.– Philippos
May 28 at 8:53
And the option
-1
is not neccessary. For a piped output, -1
is default.– Philippos
May 28 at 8:53
add a comment
|
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
set -- 2009*
echo "$#"
This sets the list of positional parameters ($1
, $2
, ..., etc.) to the names matching 2009*
. The length of this list is $#
.
The issue with ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
is that you execute wc -l
directly on the files matching 2009*
, counting the number of lines in each. Meanwhile, ls -1
is trying to write to the standard input of wc
, which wc
is not reading from since it was given an explicit list of files to work on.
You may have wanted to use ls -d 2009* | wc -l
. This would have listed all the names that match 2009*
(using ls
with -d
to not list the contents of directories), and would count the number of lines in the output. Note that -1
is not needed if you pipe the result of ls
somewhere (unless ls
is an alias or shell function that forces column output).
Note also that this would give you the wrong count if any filename contains a newline:
$ touch '2009
> was
> a
> good
> year'
$ ls
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 kk wheel 0 May 28 11:09 2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -1
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls | wc -l
5
$ ls -1 | wc -l
5
However:
$ set -- 2009*
$ echo "$#"
1
(using set
and outputting $#
additionally does not use any external commands in most shells)
Using find
to count recursively:
find . -type f -name '2009*' -exec echo . ; | wc -l
Here, we output a dot for each found pathname in or under the current directory, and then we count the number of lines that this produces. We don't count the filename strings themselves, and instead do it this way to avoid counting too many lines if a filename contains newlines.
With find
we're able to more closely control the type of file that we count. Above, we explicitly test for regular files with -type f
(i.e. not directories and other types of files). The *
pattern in the shell does not distinguish between directories and files, but the zsh
shell can use *(.)
to modify the behaviour of the pattern to only match regular files (the zsh
user would probably use 2009*(.)
instead of 2009*
in the non-find
variations above and below).
Using **
in (with shopt -s globstar
in bash
, or set -o extended-glob
in yash
, or in any other shell that may support it), to count recursively:
set -- **/2009*
echo "$#"
The pattern **
matches almost like *
, but also matches across /
in pathnames.
GNUfind
also supports the-printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than-exec echo .
.
– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
Or even without GNU,-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
add a comment
|
Tried with below command and it worked fine and got the result
find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -iname "2009*" | awk '{print NR}'| sed -n '$p'
Note: If you want to under subdirectory also Kindly remove maxdepth option
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Or justfind ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
add a comment
|
Thanks to the people in the comments, this is the answer to my question:
ls 2009* | wc -l
or using find
find 2009* | wc -l
Thefind
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursivefind
, you would not use2009*
as the search path.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
To count number of files starting with a particular filename using awk.
root@ubuntu$ find . -name "2009*" | awk 'BEGIN{total=0}; {total=total+1} END {print "total files starting with 2009 is " ,total}'
total files starting with 2009 is 4
TheBEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable inawk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f521464%2fcount-number-of-files-in-directory-with-a-certain-name%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
set -- 2009*
echo "$#"
This sets the list of positional parameters ($1
, $2
, ..., etc.) to the names matching 2009*
. The length of this list is $#
.
The issue with ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
is that you execute wc -l
directly on the files matching 2009*
, counting the number of lines in each. Meanwhile, ls -1
is trying to write to the standard input of wc
, which wc
is not reading from since it was given an explicit list of files to work on.
You may have wanted to use ls -d 2009* | wc -l
. This would have listed all the names that match 2009*
(using ls
with -d
to not list the contents of directories), and would count the number of lines in the output. Note that -1
is not needed if you pipe the result of ls
somewhere (unless ls
is an alias or shell function that forces column output).
Note also that this would give you the wrong count if any filename contains a newline:
$ touch '2009
> was
> a
> good
> year'
$ ls
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 kk wheel 0 May 28 11:09 2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -1
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls | wc -l
5
$ ls -1 | wc -l
5
However:
$ set -- 2009*
$ echo "$#"
1
(using set
and outputting $#
additionally does not use any external commands in most shells)
Using find
to count recursively:
find . -type f -name '2009*' -exec echo . ; | wc -l
Here, we output a dot for each found pathname in or under the current directory, and then we count the number of lines that this produces. We don't count the filename strings themselves, and instead do it this way to avoid counting too many lines if a filename contains newlines.
With find
we're able to more closely control the type of file that we count. Above, we explicitly test for regular files with -type f
(i.e. not directories and other types of files). The *
pattern in the shell does not distinguish between directories and files, but the zsh
shell can use *(.)
to modify the behaviour of the pattern to only match regular files (the zsh
user would probably use 2009*(.)
instead of 2009*
in the non-find
variations above and below).
Using **
in (with shopt -s globstar
in bash
, or set -o extended-glob
in yash
, or in any other shell that may support it), to count recursively:
set -- **/2009*
echo "$#"
The pattern **
matches almost like *
, but also matches across /
in pathnames.
GNUfind
also supports the-printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than-exec echo .
.
– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
Or even without GNU,-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
add a comment
|
set -- 2009*
echo "$#"
This sets the list of positional parameters ($1
, $2
, ..., etc.) to the names matching 2009*
. The length of this list is $#
.
The issue with ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
is that you execute wc -l
directly on the files matching 2009*
, counting the number of lines in each. Meanwhile, ls -1
is trying to write to the standard input of wc
, which wc
is not reading from since it was given an explicit list of files to work on.
You may have wanted to use ls -d 2009* | wc -l
. This would have listed all the names that match 2009*
(using ls
with -d
to not list the contents of directories), and would count the number of lines in the output. Note that -1
is not needed if you pipe the result of ls
somewhere (unless ls
is an alias or shell function that forces column output).
Note also that this would give you the wrong count if any filename contains a newline:
$ touch '2009
> was
> a
> good
> year'
$ ls
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 kk wheel 0 May 28 11:09 2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -1
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls | wc -l
5
$ ls -1 | wc -l
5
However:
$ set -- 2009*
$ echo "$#"
1
(using set
and outputting $#
additionally does not use any external commands in most shells)
Using find
to count recursively:
find . -type f -name '2009*' -exec echo . ; | wc -l
Here, we output a dot for each found pathname in or under the current directory, and then we count the number of lines that this produces. We don't count the filename strings themselves, and instead do it this way to avoid counting too many lines if a filename contains newlines.
With find
we're able to more closely control the type of file that we count. Above, we explicitly test for regular files with -type f
(i.e. not directories and other types of files). The *
pattern in the shell does not distinguish between directories and files, but the zsh
shell can use *(.)
to modify the behaviour of the pattern to only match regular files (the zsh
user would probably use 2009*(.)
instead of 2009*
in the non-find
variations above and below).
Using **
in (with shopt -s globstar
in bash
, or set -o extended-glob
in yash
, or in any other shell that may support it), to count recursively:
set -- **/2009*
echo "$#"
The pattern **
matches almost like *
, but also matches across /
in pathnames.
GNUfind
also supports the-printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than-exec echo .
.
– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
Or even without GNU,-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
add a comment
|
set -- 2009*
echo "$#"
This sets the list of positional parameters ($1
, $2
, ..., etc.) to the names matching 2009*
. The length of this list is $#
.
The issue with ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
is that you execute wc -l
directly on the files matching 2009*
, counting the number of lines in each. Meanwhile, ls -1
is trying to write to the standard input of wc
, which wc
is not reading from since it was given an explicit list of files to work on.
You may have wanted to use ls -d 2009* | wc -l
. This would have listed all the names that match 2009*
(using ls
with -d
to not list the contents of directories), and would count the number of lines in the output. Note that -1
is not needed if you pipe the result of ls
somewhere (unless ls
is an alias or shell function that forces column output).
Note also that this would give you the wrong count if any filename contains a newline:
$ touch '2009
> was
> a
> good
> year'
$ ls
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 kk wheel 0 May 28 11:09 2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -1
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls | wc -l
5
$ ls -1 | wc -l
5
However:
$ set -- 2009*
$ echo "$#"
1
(using set
and outputting $#
additionally does not use any external commands in most shells)
Using find
to count recursively:
find . -type f -name '2009*' -exec echo . ; | wc -l
Here, we output a dot for each found pathname in or under the current directory, and then we count the number of lines that this produces. We don't count the filename strings themselves, and instead do it this way to avoid counting too many lines if a filename contains newlines.
With find
we're able to more closely control the type of file that we count. Above, we explicitly test for regular files with -type f
(i.e. not directories and other types of files). The *
pattern in the shell does not distinguish between directories and files, but the zsh
shell can use *(.)
to modify the behaviour of the pattern to only match regular files (the zsh
user would probably use 2009*(.)
instead of 2009*
in the non-find
variations above and below).
Using **
in (with shopt -s globstar
in bash
, or set -o extended-glob
in yash
, or in any other shell that may support it), to count recursively:
set -- **/2009*
echo "$#"
The pattern **
matches almost like *
, but also matches across /
in pathnames.
set -- 2009*
echo "$#"
This sets the list of positional parameters ($1
, $2
, ..., etc.) to the names matching 2009*
. The length of this list is $#
.
The issue with ls -1 | wc -l 2009*
is that you execute wc -l
directly on the files matching 2009*
, counting the number of lines in each. Meanwhile, ls -1
is trying to write to the standard input of wc
, which wc
is not reading from since it was given an explicit list of files to work on.
You may have wanted to use ls -d 2009* | wc -l
. This would have listed all the names that match 2009*
(using ls
with -d
to not list the contents of directories), and would count the number of lines in the output. Note that -1
is not needed if you pipe the result of ls
somewhere (unless ls
is an alias or shell function that forces column output).
Note also that this would give you the wrong count if any filename contains a newline:
$ touch '2009
> was
> a
> good
> year'
$ ls
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 kk wheel 0 May 28 11:09 2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls -1
2009?was?a?good?year
$ ls | wc -l
5
$ ls -1 | wc -l
5
However:
$ set -- 2009*
$ echo "$#"
1
(using set
and outputting $#
additionally does not use any external commands in most shells)
Using find
to count recursively:
find . -type f -name '2009*' -exec echo . ; | wc -l
Here, we output a dot for each found pathname in or under the current directory, and then we count the number of lines that this produces. We don't count the filename strings themselves, and instead do it this way to avoid counting too many lines if a filename contains newlines.
With find
we're able to more closely control the type of file that we count. Above, we explicitly test for regular files with -type f
(i.e. not directories and other types of files). The *
pattern in the shell does not distinguish between directories and files, but the zsh
shell can use *(.)
to modify the behaviour of the pattern to only match regular files (the zsh
user would probably use 2009*(.)
instead of 2009*
in the non-find
variations above and below).
Using **
in (with shopt -s globstar
in bash
, or set -o extended-glob
in yash
, or in any other shell that may support it), to count recursively:
set -- **/2009*
echo "$#"
The pattern **
matches almost like *
, but also matches across /
in pathnames.
edited May 28 at 21:23
answered May 28 at 9:04
Kusalananda♦Kusalananda
167k20 gold badges325 silver badges521 bronze badges
167k20 gold badges325 silver badges521 bronze badges
GNUfind
also supports the-printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than-exec echo .
.
– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
Or even without GNU,-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
add a comment
|
GNUfind
also supports the-printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than-exec echo .
.
– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
Or even without GNU,-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
GNU
find
also supports the -printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than -exec echo .
.– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
GNU
find
also supports the -printf
action, which saves you a fork and exec, and may be more efficient than -exec echo .
.– Kevin
May 28 at 19:19
Or even without GNU,
-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
Or even without GNU,
-exec printf '.n' +
will use few fork/exec.– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:40
add a comment
|
Tried with below command and it worked fine and got the result
find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -iname "2009*" | awk '{print NR}'| sed -n '$p'
Note: If you want to under subdirectory also Kindly remove maxdepth option
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Or justfind ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
add a comment
|
Tried with below command and it worked fine and got the result
find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -iname "2009*" | awk '{print NR}'| sed -n '$p'
Note: If you want to under subdirectory also Kindly remove maxdepth option
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Or justfind ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
add a comment
|
Tried with below command and it worked fine and got the result
find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -iname "2009*" | awk '{print NR}'| sed -n '$p'
Note: If you want to under subdirectory also Kindly remove maxdepth option
Tried with below command and it worked fine and got the result
find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -iname "2009*" | awk '{print NR}'| sed -n '$p'
Note: If you want to under subdirectory also Kindly remove maxdepth option
edited May 28 at 15:09
answered May 28 at 8:59
Praveen Kumar BSPraveen Kumar BS
2,4002 gold badges3 silver badges11 bronze badges
2,4002 gold badges3 silver badges11 bronze badges
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Or justfind ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
add a comment
|
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Or justfind ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Re: the recent edit, see Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:43
Or just
find ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
Or just
find ... | awk 'END {print NR}'
(modulo the newline issue)– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:38
add a comment
|
Thanks to the people in the comments, this is the answer to my question:
ls 2009* | wc -l
or using find
find 2009* | wc -l
Thefind
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursivefind
, you would not use2009*
as the search path.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
Thanks to the people in the comments, this is the answer to my question:
ls 2009* | wc -l
or using find
find 2009* | wc -l
Thefind
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursivefind
, you would not use2009*
as the search path.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
Thanks to the people in the comments, this is the answer to my question:
ls 2009* | wc -l
or using find
find 2009* | wc -l
Thanks to the people in the comments, this is the answer to my question:
ls 2009* | wc -l
or using find
find 2009* | wc -l
answered May 28 at 8:55
JellyseJellyse
1688 bronze badges
1688 bronze badges
Thefind
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursivefind
, you would not use2009*
as the search path.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
Thefind
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursivefind
, you would not use2009*
as the search path.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
The
find
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursive find
, you would not use 2009*
as the search path.– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
The
find
command is a bit nonsensical. If you wanted to do a recursive find
, you would not use 2009*
as the search path.– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:12
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
See Kusalananda's answer where this would miscount files with newlines in their name.
– Jeff Schaller♦
May 28 at 16:41
add a comment
|
To count number of files starting with a particular filename using awk.
root@ubuntu$ find . -name "2009*" | awk 'BEGIN{total=0}; {total=total+1} END {print "total files starting with 2009 is " ,total}'
total files starting with 2009 is 4
TheBEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable inawk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
add a comment
|
To count number of files starting with a particular filename using awk.
root@ubuntu$ find . -name "2009*" | awk 'BEGIN{total=0}; {total=total+1} END {print "total files starting with 2009 is " ,total}'
total files starting with 2009 is 4
TheBEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable inawk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
add a comment
|
To count number of files starting with a particular filename using awk.
root@ubuntu$ find . -name "2009*" | awk 'BEGIN{total=0}; {total=total+1} END {print "total files starting with 2009 is " ,total}'
total files starting with 2009 is 4
To count number of files starting with a particular filename using awk.
root@ubuntu$ find . -name "2009*" | awk 'BEGIN{total=0}; {total=total+1} END {print "total files starting with 2009 is " ,total}'
total files starting with 2009 is 4
answered May 28 at 9:03
GoronGoron
1677 bronze badges
1677 bronze badges
TheBEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable inawk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
add a comment
|
TheBEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable inawk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.
– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
The
BEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable in awk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
The
BEGIN
block is not needed. An uninitialised variable in awk
will have the value zero when used in an arithmetic context.– Kusalananda♦
May 28 at 9:36
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
thanks for pointing out :-)
– Goron
May 28 at 10:45
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer
– dave_thompson_085
May 31 at 2:39
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f521464%2fcount-number-of-files-in-directory-with-a-certain-name%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
ls
is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given tols
.– muru
May 28 at 8:51
2
You want to list all 2009-files and then count the output lines:
ls 2009* | wc -l
. Jsut remember the names of the command ls = list , wc = word count (-l = lines). Beware of dangers withls
for odd file namings, though. Usingfind
might be saver.– Fiximan
May 28 at 8:52
1
And the option
-1
is not neccessary. For a piped output,-1
is default.– Philippos
May 28 at 8:53