简单的方法:

1)

>>> f = len(open("myfile.txt").readlines())
>>> f

430

>>> f = open("myfile.txt").read().count('\n')
>>> f
430
>>>

num_lines = len(list(open('myfile.txt')))

我修改了缓冲区的情况如下:

def CountLines(filename):
    f = open(filename)
    try:
        lines = 1
        buf_size = 1024 * 1024
        read_f = f.read # loop optimization
        buf = read_f(buf_size)

        # Empty file
        if not buf:
            return 0

        while buf:
            lines += buf.count('\n')
            buf = read_f(buf_size)

        return lines
    finally:
        f.close()

现在空文件和最后一行(不带\n)也被计算在内。

与此答案类似的一行bash解决方案，使用了现代子进程。check_output功能:

def line_count(filename):
    return int(subprocess.check_output(['wc', '-l', filename]).split()[0])

创建一个可执行脚本文件count.py:

#!/usr/bin/python

import sys
count = 0
for line in sys.stdin:
    count+=1

然后将文件的内容导入python脚本:cat huge.txt | ./count.py。管道也适用于Powershell，因此您将最终计算行数。

对我来说，在Linux上它比简单的解决方案快30%:

count=1
with open('huge.txt') as f:
    count+=1

对我来说，这个变体是最快的:

#!/usr/bin/env python

def main():
    f = open('filename')                  
    lines = 0
    buf_size = 1024 * 1024
    read_f = f.read # loop optimization

    buf = read_f(buf_size)
    while buf:
        lines += buf.count('\n')
        buf = read_f(buf_size)

    print lines

if __name__ == '__main__':
    main()

原因:缓冲比逐行和逐字符串读取快。计数也非常快

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.