'How to find the length of a "filter" object in python
>>> n = [1,2,3,4]
>>> filter(lambda x:x>3,n)
<filter object at 0x0000000002FDBBA8>
>>> len(filter(lambda x:x>3,n))
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#3>", line 1, in <module>
len(filter(lambda x:x>3,n))
TypeError: object of type 'filter' has no len()
I could not get the length of the list I got. So I tried saving it to a variable, like this...
>>> l = filter(lambda x:x>3,n)
>>> len(l)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#5>", line 1, in <module>
len(l)
TypeError: object of type 'filter' has no len()
Instead of using a loop, is there any way to get the length of this?
Solution 1:[1]
This is an old question, but I think this question needs an answer using the map-reduce ideology. So here:
from functools import reduce
def ilen(iterable):
return reduce(lambda sum, element: sum + 1, iterable, 0)
ilen(filter(lambda x: x > 3, n))
This is especially good if n doesn't fit in the computer memory.
Solution 2:[2]
Converting a filter to a list will take extra memory, which may not be acceptable for large amounts of data. You can find length of the filter object without converting it to a list:
sum(1 for _ in filter(lambda x: x > 3, n))
Solution 3:[3]
The docs for python 3 say it returns an iterator
"Construct an iterator from those elements of iterable for which function returns true."
In python 2 it returned a list: see here. You will need to iterate the filter object to find its length.
Solution 4:[4]
Generally, filter and reduce are not pythonic.
@arshajii metioned this solution:
len([x for x in n if x > 3])
This is quite simple, but is not describing what you exactly want to do, and it makes a list that may use some additional memory.
A better solution is using sum with generator:
sum(1 for x in n if x > 3)
(See more about generator here: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0289/#rationale)
However, sum with generator is actually slower in most cases because of the implementation (tested in CPython 3.6.4):
In [1]: %timeit len([1 for x in range(10000000)])
356 ms ± 17.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
In [2]: %timeit sum(1 for x in range(10000000))
676 ms ± 7.05 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
Sources
This article follows the attribution requirements of Stack Overflow and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Source: Stack Overflow
| Solution | Source |
|---|---|
| Solution 1 | quasiyoke |
| Solution 2 | Mohammad Banisaeid |
| Solution 3 | |
| Solution 4 |
