一个简单的基准:

import collections
import itertools

def count_iter_items(iterable):
    counter = itertools.count()
    collections.deque(itertools.izip(iterable, counter), maxlen=0)
    return next(counter)

def count_lencheck(iterable):
    if hasattr(iterable, '__len__'):
        return len(iterable)

    d = collections.deque(enumerate(iterable, 1), maxlen=1)
    return d[0][0] if d else 0

def count_sum(iterable):           
    return sum(1 for _ in iterable)

iter = lambda y: (x for x in xrange(y))

%timeit count_iter_items(iter(1000))
%timeit count_lencheck(iter(1000))
%timeit count_sum(iter(1000))

结果:

10000 loops, best of 3: 37.2 µs per loop
10000 loops, best of 3: 47.6 µs per loop
10000 loops, best of 3: 61 µs per loop

例如，简单的count_iter_items是可行的方法。

为python3调整:

61.9 µs ± 275 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
74.4 µs ± 190 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)
82.6 µs ± 164 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000 loops each)

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。

迭代器只是一个对象，它有一个指向下一个对象的指针，由某种缓冲区或流读取，它就像一个LinkedList，在那里你不知道你有多少东西，直到你遍历它们。迭代器是高效的，因为它们所做的一切都是通过引用而不是使用索引告诉你下一个是什么(但是正如你所看到的，你失去了查看下一个条目有多少的能力)。

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.

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。

不。这是不可能的。

例子:

import random

def gen(n):
    for i in xrange(n):
        if random.randint(0, 1) == 0:
            yield i

iterator = gen(10)

迭代器的长度是未知的，直到迭代遍历它。