Iterating over files of a huge directory

[Gilles Lenfant]

Hi,

I have googled but did not find an efficient solution to my problem. My customer provides a directory with a huuuuge list of files (flat, potentially 100000+) and I cannot reasonably use os.listdir(this_path) unless creating a big memory footprint.

So I'm looking for an iterator that yields the file names of a directory and does not make a giant list of what's in.

i.e :

for filename in enumerate_files(some_directory):
# My cooking...

Many thanks by advance.

 

[Chris Angelico]

Hi,

I have googled but did not find an efficient solution to my problem. My customer provides a directory with a huuuuge list of files (flat, potentially 100000+) and I cannot reasonably use os.listdir(this_path) unless creating a big memory footprint.

So I'm looking for an iterator that yields the file names of a directory and does not make a giant list of what's in.

Sounds like you want os.walk. But... a hundred thousand files? I know
the Zen of Python says that flat is better than nested, but surely
there's some kind of directory structure that would make this
marginally manageable?

http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/os.html#os.walk

ChrisA

 

[Tim Golden]

Sounds like you want os.walk. But... a hundred thousand files? I
know the Zen of Python says that flat is better than nested, but
surely there's some kind of directory structure that would make this
marginally manageable?

http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/os.html#os.walk

Unfortunately all of the built-in functions (os.walk, glob.glob,
os.listdir) rely on the os.listdir functionality which produces a list
first even if (as in glob.iglob) it later iterates over it.

There are external functions to iterate over large directories in both
Windows & Linux. I *think* the OP is on *nix from his previous posts, in
which case someone else will have to produce the Linux-speak for this.
If it's Windows, you can use the FindFilesIterator in the pywin32 package.

TJG

 

[marduk]

Hi,

I have googled but did not find an efficient solution to my problem. My
customer provides a directory with a huuuuge list of files (flat,
potentially 100000+) and I cannot reasonably use os.listdir(this_path)
unless creating a big memory footprint.

So I'm looking for an iterator that yields the file names of a directory
and does not make a giant list of what's in.

i.e :

for filename in enumerate_files(some_directory):
# My cooking...

You could try using opendir[1] which is a binding to the posix call. I
believe that it returns an iterator (file-like) of the entries in the
directory.

[1] http://pypi.python.org/pypi/opendir/

 

[Oscar Benjamin]

I have googled but did not find an efficient solution to my problem. My customer provides a directory with a huuuuge list of files (flat, potentially 100000+) and I cannot reasonably use os.listdir(this_path) unless creating a big memory footprint.

So I'm looking for an iterator that yields the file names of a directory and does not make a giant list of what's in.

i.e :

for filename in enumerate_files(some_directory):
# My cooking...

In the last couple of months there has been a lot of discussion (on
python-list or python-dev - not sure) about creating a library to more
efficiently iterate over the files in a directory. The result so far
is this library on github:
https://github.com/benhoyt/betterwalk

It says there that
"""
Somewhat relatedly, many people have also asked for a version of
os.listdir() that yields filenames as it iterates instead of returning
them as one big list.

So as well as a faster walk(), BetterWalk adds iterdir_stat() and
iterdir(). They're pretty easy to use, but see below for the full API
docs.
"""

Does that code work for you? If so, I imagine the author would be
interested to get some feedback on how well it works.

Alternatively, perhaps consider calling an external utility.


Oscar

 

[Gilles Lenfant]

Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 16:52:19 UTC+1, Oscar Benjamin a écrit :

On 17 December 2012 15:28, Gilles Lenfant <...> wrote:


In the last couple of months there has been a lot of discussion (on

python-list or python-dev - not sure) about creating a library to more

efficiently iterate over the files in a directory. The result so far

is this library on github:

https://github.com/benhoyt/betterwalk



It says there that

"""

Somewhat relatedly, many people have also asked for a version of

os.listdir() that yields filenames as it iterates instead of returning

them as one big list.



So as well as a faster walk(), BetterWalk adds iterdir_stat() and

iterdir(). They're pretty easy to use, but see below for the full API

docs.

"""



Does that code work for you? If so, I imagine the author would be

interested to get some feedback on how well it works.



Alternatively, perhaps consider calling an external utility.

Many thanks for this pointer Oscar.

"betterwalk" is exactly what I was looking for. More particularly iterdir(....) and iterdir_stat(...)
I'll get a deeper look at betterwalk and provide (hopefully successful) feedback.

Cheers

 

[Gilles Lenfant]

Le lundi 17 décembre 2012 16:52:19 UTC+1, Oscar Benjamin a écrit :

On 17 December 2012 15:28, Gilles Lenfant <...> wrote:


In the last couple of months there has been a lot of discussion (on

python-list or python-dev - not sure) about creating a library to more

efficiently iterate over the files in a directory. The result so far

is this library on github:

https://github.com/benhoyt/betterwalk



It says there that

"""

Somewhat relatedly, many people have also asked for a version of

os.listdir() that yields filenames as it iterates instead of returning

them as one big list.



So as well as a faster walk(), BetterWalk adds iterdir_stat() and

iterdir(). They're pretty easy to use, but see below for the full API

docs.

"""



Does that code work for you? If so, I imagine the author would be

interested to get some feedback on how well it works.



Alternatively, perhaps consider calling an external utility.

Many thanks for this pointer Oscar.

"betterwalk" is exactly what I was looking for. More particularly iterdir(....) and iterdir_stat(...)
I'll get a deeper look at betterwalk and provide (hopefully successful) feedback.

Cheers

 

[Paul Rudin]

Sounds like you want os.walk.

But doesn't os.walk call listdir() and that creates a list of the
contents of a directory, which is exactly the initial problem?

But... a hundred thousand files? I know the Zen of Python says that
flat is better than nested, but surely there's some kind of directory
structure that would make this marginally manageable?

Sometimes you have to deal with things other people have designed, so
the directory structure is not something you can control. I've run up
against exactly the same problem and made something in C that
implemented an iterator.

It would probably be better if listdir() made an iterator rather than a
list.

 

[MRAB]

But doesn't os.walk call listdir() and that creates a list of the
contents of a directory, which is exactly the initial problem?


Sometimes you have to deal with things other people have designed, so
the directory structure is not something you can control. I've run up
against exactly the same problem and made something in C that
implemented an iterator.

<Off topic>
Years ago I had to deal with an in-house application that was written
using a certain database package. The package stored each predefined
query in a separate file in the same directory.

I found that if I packed all the predefined queries into a single file
and then called an external utility to extract the desired query from
the file every time it was needed into a file for the package to use,
not only did it save a significant amount of disk space (hard disks
were a lot smaller then), I also got a significant speed-up!

It wasn't as bad as 100000 in one directory, but it was certainly too
many...

 

[Evan Driscoll]

In the last couple of months there has been a lot of discussion (on
python-list or python-dev - not sure) about creating a library to more
efficiently iterate over the files in a directory. The result so far
is this library on github:
https://github.com/benhoyt/betterwalk

This is very useful to know about; thanks.

I actually wrote something very similar on my own (I wanted to get
information about whether each directory entry was a file, directory,
symlink, etc. without separate stat() calls). I'm guessing that the
library you linked is more mature than mine (I only have a Linux
implementation at present, for instance) so I'm happy to see that I
could probably switch to something better... and even happier that it
sounds like it's aiming for inclusion in the standard library.


(Also just for the record and anyone looking for other posts, I'd guess
said discussion was on Python-dev. I don't look at even remotely
everything on python-list (there's just too much), but I do skim most
subject lines and I haven't noticed any discussion on it before now.)

Evan




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQz2c3AAoJEAOzoR8eZTzgPf0H/AjEzoD2b78DX7Xb9R7LHUfY
woWEfivsWkjkdA23/5BrAgDGgXKvu/zhi4UCl0MaXSIJHLA1av2x+Li+wSgjLPm9
8WE7B/sOcMY2qEH04FyBCgAZgpWv4JHOnFdDtarZG8et5AeDm1R2jqrPKGzlD4SI
EIQtgM1nNpqFLw1fnnGqlm3Bj2aJjinVIS1Mn5WQyePkSW0RtBNzz/7rxaQAMhEp
vJWyOmiCrHmOSIsaj4IzfQTeegTSvvN20crELVbwM7TMtQoepRPZyCCkWC3Ir3JG
UYwPY0KoM27me/k7pbtphbIB5xGBrMTHSTV35EAV/Z5VyYBy24f6DmsCaBButPA=
=pEvG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Oscar Benjamin]

This is very useful to know about; thanks.

I actually wrote something very similar on my own (I wanted to get
information about whether each directory entry was a file, directory,
symlink, etc. without separate stat() calls).

The initial goal of betterwalk seemed to be the ability to do os.walk
with fewer stat calls. I think the information you want is part of
what betterwalk finds "for free" from the underlying OS iteration
(without the need to call stat()) but I'm not sure.

(Also just for the record and anyone looking for other posts, I'd guess
said discussion was on Python-dev. I don't look at even remotely
everything on python-list (there's just too much), but I do skim most
subject lines and I haven't noticed any discussion on it before now.)

Actually, it was python-ideas:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/17932
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/17757

 

[Evan Driscoll]

The initial goal of betterwalk seemed to be the ability to do os.walk
with fewer stat calls. I think the information you want is part of
what betterwalk finds "for free" from the underlying OS iteration
(without the need to call stat()) but I'm not sure.

Yes, that's my impression as well.

Actually, it was python-ideas:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/17932
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.ideas/17757

Thanks again for the pointers; I'll have to go through that thread. It's
possible I can contribute something; it sounds like at least at one
point the implementation was ctypes-based and is sometimes slower, and I
have both a (now-defunct) C implementation and my current Cython module.
Ironically I haven't actually benchmarked mine.

Evan


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQz3wEAAoJEAOzoR8eZTzggJEH/iEAls+NAcfLA1nEt8GzeYFd
O8IeSJR4nnVJoUilXzFb8MF9sqneg91+fiMnvi9UZGkvkvkKvDqgDdiWBg27l6g7
iwBwruKlxrrPOm0UvhB+ltOgANo8OlVpM/MhfzWU38cjqYEwo6aBxlvYH9y5wQk0
HmFzE85x1c9hy1AU138LRDrdoIw6xLkRhB/cO4vPsJMNx5PxUNBMMc8uyJQiZAuC
QLnZa9PT8g8HFaGvjq1XRN7DYOd+rfoHjuE3EoYdyza0oiSPoevKmub5ovkRT8U+
NBxcbzjJbWuakvD43MbzhxN5jPM8z+Zpomb7sXk6mXqVbCWNZXQgkuSv9r9hc9Y=
=obg5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Terry Reedy]

Hi,

I have googled but did not find an efficient solution to my problem.
My customer provides a directory with a huuuuge list of files (flat,
potentially 100000+) and I cannot reasonably use
os.listdir(this_path) unless creating a big memory footprint.

Is is really big enough to be a real problem? See below.

So I'm looking for an iterator that yields the file names of a
directory and does not make a giant list of what's in.

i.e :

for filename in enumerate_files(some_directory): # My cooking...

See http://bugs.python.org/issue11406
As I said there, I personally think (and still do) that listdir should
have been changed in 3.0 to return an iterator rather than a list.
Developers who count more than me disagree on the basis that no
application has the millions of directory entries needed to make space a
real issue. They also claim that time is a wash either way.

As for space, 100000 entries x 100 bytes/entry (generous guess at
average) = 10,000,000 bytes, no big deal with gigabyte memories. So the
logic goes. A smaller example from my machine with 3.3.

from sys import getsizeof

def seqsize(seq):
"Get size of flat sequence and contents"
return sum((getsizeof(item) for item in seq), getsizeof(seq))

import os
d = os.listdir()
print(seqsize([1,2,3]), len(d), seqsize(d))
#
172 45 3128

The size per entry is relatively short because the two-level directory
prefix for each path is only about 15 bytes. By using 3.3 rather than
3.0-3.2, the all-ascii-char unicode paths only take 1 byte per char
rather than 2 or 4.

If you disagree with the responses on the issue, after reading them,
post one yourself with real numbers.