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;
}








4

















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.










share|improve this question






















  • 2





    ls is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given to ls.

    – 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 with ls for odd file namings, though. Using find 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


















4

















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.










share|improve this question






















  • 2





    ls is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given to ls.

    – 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 with ls for odd file namings, though. Using find 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














4












4








4








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.










share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question










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 to ls.

    – 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 with ls for odd file namings, though. Using find 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





    ls is doing the listing, so the filenames should be given to ls.

    – 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 with ls for odd file namings, though. Using find 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










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















10


















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.






share|improve this answer





























  • 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



















2


















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






share|improve this answer





























  • 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



















1


















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





share|improve this answer



























  • 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



















0


















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





share|improve this answer



























  • 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











  • And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer

    – dave_thompson_085
    May 31 at 2:39













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
});


}
});















draft saved

draft discarded
















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









10


















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.






share|improve this answer





























  • 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
















10


















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.






share|improve this answer





























  • 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














10














10










10









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.






share|improve this answer
















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.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 28 at 21:23

























answered May 28 at 9:04









KusalanandaKusalananda

167k20 gold badges325 silver badges521 bronze badges




167k20 gold badges325 silver badges521 bronze badges
















  • 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



















  • 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

















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













2


















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






share|improve this answer





























  • 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
















2


















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






share|improve this answer





























  • 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














2














2










2









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






share|improve this answer
















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







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








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 just find ... | 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











  • Or just find ... | 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











1


















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





share|improve this answer



























  • 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
















1


















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





share|improve this answer



























  • 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














1














1










1









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





share|improve this answer














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






share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 28 at 8:55









JellyseJellyse

1688 bronze badges




1688 bronze badges
















  • 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



















  • 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

















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











0


















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





share|improve this answer



























  • 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











  • And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer

    – dave_thompson_085
    May 31 at 2:39
















0


















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





share|improve this answer



























  • 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











  • And awk's builtin NR already gives the record number, as in Praveen's answer

    – dave_thompson_085
    May 31 at 2:39














0














0










0









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





share|improve this answer














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






share|improve this answer













share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 28 at 9:03









GoronGoron

1677 bronze badges




1677 bronze badges
















  • 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











  • 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











  • 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



















draft saved

draft discarded



















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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









Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029