所以，对于那些想知道讨论总结的人。使用以下方法计算5000万长度生成器表达式的最终最高分:

len(列表(创)), Len ([_ for _ in gen])， Sum (1 for _ in gen)， Ilen (gen) (from more_itertool)， Reduce (c, i: c + 1, gen, 0)，

按执行性能排序(包括内存消耗)，会让你大吃一惊:

```

1: test_list.py: 8:0.492 KiB

gen = (i for i in data*1000); t0 = monotonic(); len(list(gen))

('list, sec'， 1.9684218849870376)

2: test_list_compr.py: 8:0.867 KiB

gen = (i for i in data*1000); t0 = monotonic(); len([i for i in gen])

('list_compr, sec'， 2.5885991149989422)

3: test_sum.py:8: 0.859 KiB

gen = (i for i in data*1000); t0 = monotonic(); sum(1 for i in gen); t1 = monotonic()

('sum, sec'， 3.441088170016883)

4: more_itertools/more.py:413: 1.266 KiB

d = deque(enumerate(iterable, 1), maxlen=1)

test_ilen.py:10: 0.875 KiB
gen = (i for i in data*1000); t0 = monotonic(); ilen(gen)

(ilen, sec, 9.812256851990242)

5: test_reduce.py:8: 0.859 KiB

gen = (i for i in data*1000); t0 = monotonic(); reduce(lambda counter, i: counter + 1, gen, 0)

('reduce, sec'， 13.436614598002052) ' ' '

因此，len(list(gen))是使用频率最高且占用内存较少的

这段代码应该工作:

>>> iter = (i for i in range(50))
>>> sum(1 for _ in iter)
50

尽管它确实遍历每一项并计算它们，但这是最快的方法。

它也适用于迭代器中没有项的情况:

>>> sum(1 for _ in range(0))
0

当然，对于一个无限的输入，它会一直运行，所以请记住迭代器可以是无限的:

>>> sum(1 for _ in itertools.count())
[nothing happens, forever]

此外，请注意，这样做将耗尽迭代器，并且进一步尝试使用它将看不到任何元素。这是Python迭代器设计的一个不可避免的结果。如果你想保留元素，你就必须把它们存储在一个列表或其他东西中。

通常的做法是将这类信息放在文件头中，并让pysam允许您访问这些信息。我不知道格式，但是你检查过API了吗?

正如其他人所说，你不能从迭代器中知道长度。

在计算机上有两种方法来获取“某物”的长度。

第一种方法是存储一个计数——这需要任何接触文件/数据的东西来修改它(或者一个只公开接口的类——但归根结底是一样的)。

另一种方法是遍历它并计算它有多大。

关于你最初的问题，答案仍然是，在Python中通常没有办法知道迭代器的长度。

Given that you question is motivated by an application of the pysam library, I can give a more specific answer: I'm a contributer to PySAM and the definitive answer is that SAM/BAM files do not provide an exact count of aligned reads. Nor is this information easily available from a BAM index file. The best one can do is to estimate the approximate number of alignments by using the location of the file pointer after reading a number of alignments and extrapolating based on the total size of the file. This is enough to implement a progress bar, but not a method of counting alignments in constant time.

我决定在现代版本的Python上重新运行基准测试，并发现几乎完全颠倒了基准测试

我运行了以下命令:

py -m timeit -n 10000000 -s "it = iter(range(1000000))" -s "from collections import deque" -s "from itertools import count" -s "def itlen(x):" -s "  return len(tuple(x))" -- "itlen(it)"
py -m timeit -n 10000000 -s "it = iter(range(1000000))" -s "from collections import deque" -s "from itertools import count" -s "def itlen(x):" -s "  return len(list(x))" -- "itlen(it)"
py -m timeit -n 10000000 -s "it = iter(range(1000000))" -s "from collections import deque" -s "from itertools import count" -s "def itlen(x):" -s "  return sum(map(lambda i: 1, x))" -- "itlen(it)"
py -m timeit -n 10000000 -s "it = iter(range(1000000))" -s "from collections import deque" -s "from itertools import count" -s "def itlen(x):" -s "  return sum(1 for _ in x)" -- "itlen(it)"
py -m timeit -n 10000000 -s "it = iter(range(1000000))" -s "from collections import deque" -s "from itertools import count" -s "def itlen(x):" -s "  d = deque(enumerate(x, 1), maxlen=1)" -s "  return d[0][0] if d else 0" -- "itlen(it)"
py -m timeit -n 10000000 -s "it = iter(range(1000000))" -s "from collections import deque" -s "from itertools import count" -s "def itlen(x):" -s "  counter = count()" -s "  deque(zip(x, counter), maxlen=0)" -s "  return next(counter)" -- "itlen(it)"

它们等价于为以下每个itlen*(it)函数计时:

it = iter(range(1000000))
from collections import deque
from itertools import count

def itlen1(x):
  return len(tuple(x))
def itlen2(x):
  return len(list(x))
def itlen3(x):
  return sum(map(lambda i: 1, x))
def itlen4(x):
  return sum(1 for _ in x)
def itlen5(x):
  d = deque(enumerate(x, 1), maxlen=1)
  return d[0][0] if d else 0
def itlen6(x):
  counter = count()
  deque(zip(x, counter), maxlen=0)
  return next(counter)

在装有AMD Ryzen 7 5800H和16 GB RAM的Windows 11、Python 3.11机器上，我得到了以下输出:

10000000 loops, best of 5: 103 nsec per loop
10000000 loops, best of 5: 107 nsec per loop
10000000 loops, best of 5: 138 nsec per loop
10000000 loops, best of 5: 164 nsec per loop
10000000 loops, best of 5: 338 nsec per loop
10000000 loops, best of 5: 425 nsec per loop

这表明len(list(x))和len(tuple(x))是绑定的;后面跟着sum(map(lambda i: 1, x));然后紧靠sum(1 for _ in x);那么其他答案中提到的其他更复杂的方法和/或在基数中使用的方法至少要慢两倍。