def file_len(full_path):
  """ Count number of lines in a file."""
  f = open(full_path)
  nr_of_lines = sum(1 for line in f)
  f.close()
  return nr_of_lines

这是对其他一些答案的元评论。

The line-reading and buffered \n-counting techniques won't return the same answer for every file, because some text files have no newline at the end of the last line. You can work around this by checking the last byte of the last nonempty buffer and adding 1 if it's not b'\n'. In Python 3, opening the file in text mode and in binary mode can yield different results, because text mode by default recognizes CR, LF, and CRLF as line endings (converting them all to '\n'), while in binary mode only LF and CRLF will be counted if you count b'\n'. This applies whether you read by lines or into a fixed-size buffer. The classic Mac OS used CR as a line ending; I don't know how common those files are these days. The buffer-reading approach uses a bounded amount of RAM independent of file size, while the line-reading approach could read the entire file into RAM at once in the worst case (especially if the file uses CR line endings). In the worst case it may use substantially more RAM than the file size, because of overhead from dynamic resizing of the line buffer and (if you opened in text mode) Unicode decoding and storage. You can improve the memory usage, and probably the speed, of the buffered approach by pre-allocating a bytearray and using readinto instead of read. One of the existing answers (with few votes) does this, but it's buggy (it double-counts some bytes). The top buffer-reading answer uses a large buffer (1 MiB). Using a smaller buffer can actually be faster because of OS readahead. If you read 32K or 64K at a time, the OS will probably start reading the next 32K/64K into the cache before you ask for it, and each trip to the kernel will return almost immediately. If you read 1 MiB at a time, the OS is unlikely to speculatively read a whole megabyte. It may preread a smaller amount but you will still spend a significant amount of time sitting in the kernel waiting for the disk to return the rest of the data.

一句话解决方案:

import os
os.system("wc -l  filename")  

我的代码片段:

>>> os.system('wc -l *.txt')

0 bar.txt
1000 command.txt
3 test_file.txt
1003 total

下面是一个python程序，使用多处理库将行计数分布到不同的机器/核。使用8核windows 64服务器，我的测试将一个2000万行文件的计数从26秒提高到7秒。注意:不使用内存映射会使运行速度变慢。

import multiprocessing, sys, time, os, mmap
import logging, logging.handlers

def init_logger(pid):
    console_format = 'P{0} %(levelname)s %(message)s'.format(pid)
    logger = logging.getLogger()  # New logger at root level
    logger.setLevel( logging.INFO )
    logger.handlers.append( logging.StreamHandler() )
    logger.handlers[0].setFormatter( logging.Formatter( console_format, '%d/%m/%y %H:%M:%S' ) )

def getFileLineCount( queues, pid, processes, file1 ):
    init_logger(pid)
    logging.info( 'start' )

    physical_file = open(file1, "r")
    #  mmap.mmap(fileno, length[, tagname[, access[, offset]]]

    m1 = mmap.mmap( physical_file.fileno(), 0, access=mmap.ACCESS_READ )

    #work out file size to divide up line counting

    fSize = os.stat(file1).st_size
    chunk = (fSize / processes) + 1

    lines = 0

    #get where I start and stop
    _seedStart = chunk * (pid)
    _seekEnd = chunk * (pid+1)
    seekStart = int(_seedStart)
    seekEnd = int(_seekEnd)

    if seekEnd < int(_seekEnd + 1):
        seekEnd += 1

    if _seedStart < int(seekStart + 1):
        seekStart += 1

    if seekEnd > fSize:
        seekEnd = fSize

    #find where to start
    if pid > 0:
        m1.seek( seekStart )
        #read next line
        l1 = m1.readline()  # need to use readline with memory mapped files
        seekStart = m1.tell()

    #tell previous rank my seek start to make their seek end

    if pid > 0:
        queues[pid-1].put( seekStart )
    if pid < processes-1:
        seekEnd = queues[pid].get()

    m1.seek( seekStart )
    l1 = m1.readline()

    while len(l1) > 0:
        lines += 1
        l1 = m1.readline()
        if m1.tell() > seekEnd or len(l1) == 0:
            break

    logging.info( 'done' )
    # add up the results
    if pid == 0:
        for p in range(1,processes):
            lines += queues[0].get()
        queues[0].put(lines) # the total lines counted
    else:
        queues[0].put(lines)

    m1.close()
    physical_file.close()

if __name__ == '__main__':
    init_logger( 'main' )
    if len(sys.argv) > 1:
        file_name = sys.argv[1]
    else:
        logging.fatal( 'parameters required: file-name [processes]' )
        exit()

    t = time.time()
    processes = multiprocessing.cpu_count()
    if len(sys.argv) > 2:
        processes = int(sys.argv[2])
    queues=[] # a queue for each process
    for pid in range(processes):
        queues.append( multiprocessing.Queue() )
    jobs=[]
    prev_pipe = 0
    for pid in range(processes):
        p = multiprocessing.Process( target = getFileLineCount, args=(queues, pid, processes, file_name,) )
        p.start()
        jobs.append(p)

    jobs[0].join() #wait for counting to finish
    lines = queues[0].get()

    logging.info( 'finished {} Lines:{}'.format( time.time() - t, lines ) )

凯尔的回答

num_lines = sum(1 for line in open('my_file.txt'))

最好的替代方案是什么

num_lines =  len(open('my_file.txt').read().splitlines())

这里是两者的性能比较

In [20]: timeit sum(1 for line in open('Charts.ipynb'))
100000 loops, best of 3: 9.79 µs per loop

In [21]: timeit len(open('Charts.ipynb').read().splitlines())
100000 loops, best of 3: 12 µs per loop

我发现你可以。

f = open("data.txt")
linecout = len(f.readlines())

会给你答案吗