I need to read the number of lines in a file before doing some operations on that file. When I try to read the file and increment the line_count variable at each iteration until I reach EOF. It was not that fast in my case. I used both ifstream and fgets. They were both slow. Is there a hacky way to do this, which is also used by, for instance BSD, Linux kernel or berkeley db (may be by using bitwise operations).
The number of lines is in the millions in that file and it keeps getting larger, each line is about 40 or 50 characters. I'm using Linux.
Note:
I'm sure there will be people who might say use a DB idiot. But briefly in my case I can't use a db.
The only way to find the line count is to read the whole file and count the number of line-end characters. The fastest way to do this is probably to read the whole file into a large buffer with one read operation and then go through the buffer counting the '\n' characters.
As your current file size appears to be about 60Mb, this is not an attractive option. You can get some of the speed by not reading the whole file, but reading it in chunks, say of size 1Mb. You also say that a database is out of the question, but it really does look to be the best long-term solution.
Edit: I just ran a small benchmark on this and using the buffered approach (buffer size 1024K) seems to be a bit more than twice as fast as reading a line at a time with getline(). Here's the code - my tests were done with g++ using -O2 optimisation level:
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <vector>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;
unsigned int FileRead( istream & is, vector <char> & buff ) {
is.read( &buff[0], buff.size() );
return is.gcount();
}
unsigned int CountLines( const vector <char> & buff, int sz ) {
int newlines = 0;
const char * p = &buff[0];
for ( int i = 0; i < sz; i++ ) {
if ( p[i] == '\n' ) {
newlines++;
}
}
return newlines;
}
int main( int argc, char * argv[] ) {
time_t now = time(0);
if ( argc == 1 ) {
cout << "lines\n";
ifstream ifs( "lines.dat" );
int n = 0;
string s;
while( getline( ifs, s ) ) {
n++;
}
cout << n << endl;
}
else {
cout << "buffer\n";
const int SZ = 1024 * 1024;
std::vector <char> buff( SZ );
ifstream ifs( "lines.dat" );
int n = 0;
while( int cc = FileRead( ifs, buff ) ) {
n += CountLines( buff, cc );
}
cout << n << endl;
}
cout << time(0) - now << endl;
}
Don't use C++ stl strings and getline ( or C's fgets), just C style raw pointers and either block read in page-size chunks or mmap the file.
Then scan the block at the native word size of your system ( ie either uint32_t or uint64_t) using one of the magic algorithms 'SIMD Within A Register (SWAR) Operations' for testing the bytes within the word. An example is here; the loop with the 0x0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0aLL in it scans for line breaks. ( that code gets to around 5 cycles per input byte matching a regex on each line of a file )
If the file is only a few tens or a hundred or so megabytes, and it keeps growing (ie something keeps writing to it), then there's a good likelihood that linux has it cached in memory, so it won't be disk IO limited, but memory bandwidth limited.
If the file is only ever being appended to, you could also remember the number of lines
and previous length, and start from there.
It has been pointed out that you could use mmap with C++ stl algorithms, and create a functor to pass to std::foreach. I suggested that you shouldn't do it not because you can't do it that way, but there is no gain in writing the extra code to do so. Or you can use boost's mmapped iterator, which handles it all for you; but for the problem the code I linked to was written for this was much, much slower, and the question was about speed not style.
You wrote that it keeps getting larger.
This sounds like it is a log file or something similar where new lines are appended but existing lines are not changed. If this is the case you could try an incremental approach:
Parse to the end of file.
Remember the line count and the offset of EOF.
When the file grows fseek to the offset, parse to EOF and update the line count and the offset.
There's a difference between counting lines and counting line separators. Some common gotchas to watch out for if getting an exact line count is important:
What's the file encoding? The byte-by-byte solutions will work for ASCII and UTF-8, but watch out if you have UTF-16 or some multibyte encoding that doesn't guarantee that a byte with the value of a line feed necessarily encodes a line feed.
Many text files don't have a line separator at the end of the last line. So if your file says "Hello, World!", you could end up with a count of 0 instead of 1. Rather than just counting the line separators, you'll need a simple state machine to keep track.
Some very obscure files use Unicode U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR (or even U+2029 PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR) as line separators instead of the more common carriage return and/or line feed. You might also want to watch out for U+0085 NEXT LINE (NEL).
You'll have to consider whether you want to count some other control characters as line breakers. For example, should a U+000C FORM FEED or U+000B LINE TABULATION (a.k.a. vertical tab) be considered going to a new line?
Text files from older versions of Mac OS (before OS X) use carriage returns (U+000D) rather than line feeds (U+000A) to separate lines. If you're reading the raw bytes into a buffer (e.g., with your stream in binary mode) and scanning them, you'll come up with a count of 0 on these files. You can't count both carriage returns and line feeds, because PC files generally end a line with both. Again, you'll need a simple state machine. (Alternatively, you can read the file in text mode rather than binary mode. The text interfaces will normalize line separators to '\n' for files that conform to the convention used on your platform. If you're reading files from other platforms, you'll be back to binary mode with a state machine.)
If you ever have a super long line in the file, the getline() approach can throw an exception causing your simple line counter to fail on a small number of files. (This is particularly true if you're reading an old Mac file on a non-Mac platform, causing getline() to see the entire file as one gigantic line.) By reading chunks into a fixed-size buffer and using a state machine, you can make it bullet proof.
The code in the accepted answer suffers from most of these traps. Make it right before you make it fast.
Remember that all fstreams are buffered. So they in-effect do actually reads in chunks so you do not have to recreate this functionality. So all you need to do is scan the buffer. Don't use getline() though as this will force you to size a string. So I would just use the STL std::count and stream iterators.
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <iterator>
#include <algorithm>
struct TestEOL
{
bool operator()(char c)
{
last = c;
return last == '\n';
}
char last;
};
int main()
{
std::fstream file("Plop.txt");
TestEOL test;
std::size_t count = std::count_if(std::istreambuf_iterator<char>(file),
std::istreambuf_iterator<char>(),
test);
if (test.last != '\n') // If the last character checked is not '\n'
{ // then the last line in the file has not been
++count; // counted. So increement the count so we count
} // the last line even if it is not '\n' terminated.
}
It isn't slow because of your algorithm , It is slow because IO operations are slow. I suppose you are using a simple O(n) algorithm that is simply going over the file sequentially. In that case , there is no faster algorithm that can optimize your program.
However , I said there is no faster algorithm , but there is a faster mechanism which called "Memory Mapped file " , There are some drawback for mapped files and it might not be appropiate for you case , So you'll have to read about it and figure out by yourself.
Memory mapped files won't let you implement an algorithm better then O(n) but it may will reduce IO access time.
You can only get a definitive answer by scanning the entire file looking for newline characters. There's no way around that.
However, there are a couple of possibilities which you may want to consider.
1/ If you're using a simplistic loop, reading one character at a time checking for newlines, don't. Even though the I/O may be buffered, function calls themselves are expensive, time-wise.
A better option is to read large chunks of the file (say 5M) into memory with a single I/O operation, then process that. You probably don't need to worry too much about special assembly instruction since the C runtime library will be optimized anyway - a simple strchr() should do it.
2/ If you're saying that the general line length is about 40-50 characters and you don't need an exact line count, just grab the file size and divide by 45 (or whatever average you deem to use).
3/ If this is something like a log file and you don't have to keep it in one file (may require rework on other parts of the system), consider splitting the file periodically.
For example, when it gets to 5M, move it (e.g., x.log) to a dated file name (e.g., x_20090101_1022.log) and work out how many lines there are at that point (storing it in x_20090101_1022.count, then start a new x.log log file. Characteristics of log files mean that this dated section that was created will never change so you will never have to recalculate the number of lines.
To process the log "file", you'd just cat x_*.log through some process pipe rather than cat x.log. To get the line count of the "file", do a wc -l on the current x.log (relatively fast) and add it to the sum of all the values in the x_*.count files.
The thing that takes time is loading 40+ MB into memory. The fastest way to do that is to either memorymap it, or load it in one go into a big buffer. Once you have it in memory, one way or another, a loop traversing the data looking for \n characters is almost instantaneous, no matter how it is implemented.
So really, the most important trick is to load the file into memory as fast as possible. And the fastest way to do that is to do it as a single operation.
Otherwise, plenty of tricks may exist to speed up the algorithm. If lines are only added, never modified or removed, and if you're reading the file repeatedly, you can cache the lines read previously, and the next time you have to read the file, only read the newly added lines.
Or perhaps you can maintain a separate index file showing the location of known '\n' characters, so those parts of the file can be skipped over.
Reading large amounts of data from the harddrive is slow. There's no way around that.
If your file only grows, then Ludwig Weinzierl is the best solution if you do not have control of the writers. Otherwise, you can make it even faster: increment the counter by one each time a line is written to the file. If multiple writers may try to write to the file simultaneously, then make sure to use a lock. Locking your existing file is enough. The counter can be 4 or 8 bytes written in binary in a file written under /run/<your-prog-name>/counter (which is RAM so dead fast).
Ludwig Algorithm
Initialize offset to 0
Read file from offset to EOF counting '\n' (as mentioned by others, make sure to use buffered I/O and count the '\n' inside that buffer)
Update offset with position at EOF
Save counter & offset to a file or in a variable if you only need it in your software
Repeat from "Read file ..." on a change
This is actually how various software processing log files function (i.e. fail2ban comes to mind).
The first time, it has to process a huge file. Afterward, it is very small and thus goes very fast.
Proactive Algorithm
When creating the files, reset counter to 0.
Then each time you receive a new line to add to the file:
Lock file
Write one line
Load counter
Add one to counter
Save counter
Unlock file
This is very close to what database systems do so a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM table on a table with millions of rows return instantly. Databases also do that per index. So if you add a WHERE clause which matches a specific index, you also get the total instantly. Same principle as above.
Personal note: I see a huge number of Internet software which are backward. A watchdog makes sense for various things in a software environment. However, in most cases, when something of importance happens, you should send a message at the time it happens. Not use a backward concept of checking logs to detect that something bad just happened.
For example, you detect that a user tried to access a website and entered the wrong password 5 times in a row. You want to send a instant message to the admin to make sure there wasn't a 6th time which was successful and the hacker can now see all your user's data... If you use logs, the "instant message" is going to be late by seconds if not minutes.
Don't do processing backward.
Related
I am writing a program to reformat a DNS log file for insertion to a database. There is a possibility that the line currently being written to in the log file is incomplete. If it is, I would like to discard it.
I started off believing that the eof function might be a good fit for my application, however I noticed a lot of programmers dissuading the use of the eof function. I have also noticed that the feof function seems to be quite similar.
Any suggestions/explanations that you guys could provide about the side effects of these functions would be most appreciated, as would any suggestions for more appropriate methods!
Edit: I currently am using the istream::peek function in order to skip over the last line, regardless of whether it is complete or not. While acceptable, a solution that determines whether the last line is complete would be preferred.
The specific comparison I'm using is: logFile.peek() != EOF
I would consider using
int fseek ( FILE * stream, long int offset, int origin );
with SEEK_END
and then
long int ftell ( FILE * stream );
to determine the number of bytes in the file, and therefore - where it ends. I have found this to be more reliable in detecting the end of the file (in bytes).
Could you detect an (End of Record/Line) EOR marker (CRLF perhaps) in the last two or three bytes of the file? (3 bytes might be used for CRLF^Z...depends on the file type). This would verify if you have a complete last row
fseek (stream, -2,SEEK_END);
fread (2 bytes... etc
If you try to open the file with exclusive locks, you can detect (by the failure to open) that the file is in use, and try again in a second...(or whenever)
If you need to capture the file contents as the file is being written, it's much easier if you eliminate as many layers of indirection and buffering between your logic and the actual bytes of data in the file.
Do not use C++ IO streams of any type - you have no real control over them. Don't use FILE *-based functions such as fopen() and fread() - those are buffered, and even if you disable buffering there are layers of code between your code and the data that once again you can't control and don't know what's happening.
In a POSIX environment, you can use low-level C-style open() and read()/pread() calls. And use fstat() to know when the file contents have changed - you'll see the st_size member of the struct stat argument change after a call to fstat().
You'd open the file like this:
int logFileFD = open( "/some/file/name.log", O_RDONLY );
Inside a loop, you could do something like this (error checking and actual data processing omitted):
size_t lastSize = 0;
while ( !done )
{
struct stat statBuf;
fstat( logFileFD, &statBuf );
if ( statBuf.st_size == lastSize )
{
sleep( 1 ); // or however long you want
continue; // go to next loop iteration
}
// process new data - might need to keep some of the old data
// around to handle lines that cross boundaries
processNewContents( logFileFD, lastSize, statBuf.st_size );
}
processNewContents() could look something like this:
void processNewContents( int fd, size_t start, size_t end )
{
static char oldData[ BUFSIZE ];
static char newData[ BUFSIZE ];
// assumes amount of data will fit in newData...
ssize_t bytesRead = pread( fd, newData, start, end - start );
// process the data that was read read here
return;
}
You may also find that you need to add some code to close() then re-open() the file in case your application doesn't seem to be "seeing" data written to the file. I've seen that happen on some systems - the application somehow sees a cached copy of the file size somewhere while an ls run in another context gets the more accurate, updated size. If, for example, you know your log file is written to every 10-15 seconds, if you go 30 seconds without seeing any change to the file you know to try reopening the file.
You can also track the inode number in the struct stat results to catch log file rotation.
In a non-POSIX environment, you can replace open(), fstat() and pread() calls with the low-level OS equivalent, although Windows provides most of what you'd need. On Windows, lseek() followed by read() would replace pread().
I am trying to understand how basic I/O with files is handled in c++ or c. My aim is to read file line by line and send the lines across to a remote server. If the line is sent, I want to delete it from the file.
One way I tried was that I kept a count of the lines read and called an system() system call to delete the 'count' number of lines. I used the bash command: sed -i -e 1,'count'd filename.
After that I continued reading the file and surprisingly it worked as planned.
I have two questions:
Is this way reliable?
And why does this work at all, when while
reading the file I deleted a part of it and yet it works? What if I
did a seek to a previous position, what then?
Best,Digvijay
PS:
I would be glad if somebody could suggest a better way.
Also here is the code for the program I wrote:
#include<iostream>
#include<fstream>
#include<string>
#include<sstream>
#include<cstdlib>
int main(){
std::ifstream f;
std::string line;
std::stringstream ss;
int i=0;
f.open("in.txt");
if(f.is_open()){
while(getline(f,line)){
std::cout<<line<<std::endl;
i++;
if(i==2)break;
}
ss<<"sed -i -e 1,"<<i<<"d in.txt";
system(ss.str().c_str());
while(getline(f,line)){
std::cout<<line<<std::endl;
}
}
return 0;
}
Edit:
Firstly thanks for taking the time to write answers. But here is some extra information which I missed out on earlier. The files I am dealing with are log files. So they are constantly being appended with information from devices. The reason why I want to avoid creating a copy is, because the log file themselves are very big(at times) and plus this would help to keep the log file short. Since they would be divided into parts and archived on the server.
Solution
I have found the way to deal with the problem. Apparently Thomas is right, that sed does create a new file. So the old file remains as is. Using this, I can read n lines, call the system function, close the file pointer and open it again. I do this on small chunks of the log, repeatedly until it becomes small and hence efficient to deal with. The server while archives the logs in 1gb files.
However I have a new question, due to memory constraint, I need to know if it is possible to split a log file into two efficiently. (Which possibly would be another question on SO)
Most modern file systems don't support deleting lines at the beginning of the file, so doing so would be very inefficient.
The normal solution to your actual problem is to stop writing to your log file when it reaches some size, then start writing to a new file. The code that copies the files can delete a whole file once it has been written (this is an efficient operation).
sed writes a new version of the file, while the program keeps reading the same version that it opened. This is the usual behavior of Unix and Linux when a program writes a file that another program has open.
You can see this for yourself with this small C program:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
FILE *f = fopen("in.txt", "r");
while (1) {
rewind(f);
int lines = 0;
int c;
while ((c = getc(f)) != EOF)
if (c == '\n')
++lines;
printf("Number of lines in file: %d\n", lines);
}
return 0;
}
Run that program in one window, and then use sed in another window to edit the file. The number of lines printed by the program will stay the same, even if the file on disk has been edited, and this is because Unix keeps the old, open version, even if it is no longer accessible to other programs.
As to your first question, how reliable your solution is, as far as I can see it should be reliable, except with the usual caveats about the system crashing or running out of memory in the middle of an update, someone else accessing the file, and of course all the problems with the system call. It is not very efficient, though, and for large data sets you might want to do it differently.
sujin's comment about using a temporary file for the lines you want to keep seems reasonable. It would be both faster and safer. Keep the original file, so if the system crashes you'll still have your data, and wait until you have finished to rename the old file to "in.txt.bak", and then rename your temporary file to "in.txt".
First off, avoid use of system calls as much as you can (if possible, don't use it at all) as they create race conditions and other problems which drastically (and often) detrimentally affect the outcome of your program. This especially true if access to files are involved.
Given your problem, there are a number of ways to do this, each with its own caveats.
I'll cover three possible solutions:
1) If the file is small enough:
you can read in the entire thing in a data structure (vector, list, deque, etc.)
delete the original file
determine how many lines to read (and send off via server protocol)
then write the remaining lines as the name of the original file.
If you intend to parallelize your program later on, this may be a better solution, provided that the file is small. Note: small is a relative term, but is generally limited by how much memory you have available.
2) If the file is quite large or you're limited by memory constraints, you will have to get creative by using buffers. Once you've read a line and successfully sent it off via your program, you determine where the file pointer is and copy the remaining information until the end of the current file as a new file. Once done, close and delete the old file, then close and rename the new file the same name as the old file.
3) If your solution doesn't have to be in C++, you can use shell-scripting or (controversially) another language to get the job done.
1) No, it's not reliable.
2) The C++ runtime library reads your file in blocks (internally) which are then parceled out to your (higher level) input requests until the block(s) is(are) exhausted, forcing it to (internally) read more blocks from disk. Since one or more physical blocks are read in before you make any call to sed, it/they cannot be altered if sed happens to change that first part of the file.
To see your code fail, you would need to make the input file big enough that there are remaining blocks of the file that have not been read in (internally by the runtime library) before you call sed. By "fail" I mean your program would not see all the characters that were originally in the file before sed clobbered some lines.
As the other guys said, you have to make another file with the records you need after read the original file and then delete it. But in this application perhaps you will see more useful a fifo than a file. If you are on a *NIX platform check up about the makefifo statement from the console.
It is like a file with the singularity that after read a line it gets deleted.
I'm working on some project and I'm wondering which way is the most efficient to read a huge amount of data off a file(I'm speaking of file of 100 lines up to 3 billions lines approx., can be more thought). Once read, data will be stored in a structured data set (vector<entry> where "entry" defines a structured line).
A structured line of this file may look like :
string int int int string string
which also ends with the appropriate platform EOL and is TAB delimited
What I wish to accomplish is :
Read file into memory (string) or vector<char>
Read raw data from my buffer and format it into my data set.
I need to consider memory footprint and have a fast parsing rate.
I'm already avoiding usage of stringstream as they seems too slow.
I'm also avoiding multiple I/O call to my file by using :
// open the stream
std::ifstream is(filename);
// determine the file length
is.seekg(0, ios_base::end);
std::size_t size = is.tellg();
is.seekg(0, std::ios_base::beg);
// "out" can be a std::string or vector<char>
out.reserve(size / sizeof (char));
out.resize(size / sizeof (char), 0);
// load the data
is.read((char *) &out[0], size);
// close the file
is.close();
I've thought of taking this huge std::string and then looping line by line, I would extract line information (string and integer parts) into my data set row. Is there a better way of doing this?
EDIT : This application may run on a 32bit, 64bit computer, or on a super computer for bigger files.
Any suggestions are very welcome.
Thank you
Some random thoughts:
Use vector::resize() at the beginning (you did that)
Read large blocks of file data at a time, at least 4k, better still 256k. Read them into a memory buffer, parse that buffer into your vector.
Don't read the whole file at once, this might needlessly lead to swapping.
sizeof(char) is always 1 :)
while i cannot speak for supercomputers with 3 gig lines you will go nowhere in memory on a desktop machine.
i think you should first try to figure out all operations on that data. you should try to design all algorithms to operate sequentially. if you need random access you will do swapping all the time. this algorithm design will have a big impact on your data model.
so do not start with reading all data, just because that is an easy part, but design the whole system with a clear view an what data is in memory during the whole processing.
update
when you do all processing in a single run on the stream and separate the data processing in stages (read - preprocess - ... - write) you can utilize multithreading effectivly.
finally
whatever you want to do in a loop over the data, try to keep the number of loops a minimum. averaging for sure you can do in the read loop.
immediately make up a test file the size you expect to be the worst case in size and time two different approaches
.
time
loop
read line from disk
time
loop
process line (counting words per line)
time
loop
write data (word count) from line to disk
time
versus.
time
loop
read line from disk
process line (counting words per line)
write data (word count) from line to disk
time
if you have the algorithms already use yours. otherwise make up one (like counting words per line). if the write stage does not apply to your problem skip it. this test does take you less than an hour to write but can save you a lot.
I have a file which has text like this:
#1#14#ADEADE#CAH0F#0#0.....
I need to create a code that will find text that follows # symbol, store it to variable and then writes it to file WITHOUT # symbol, but with a space before. So from previous code I will get:
1 14 ADEADE CAH0F 0 0......
I first tried to did it in Python, but files are really big and it takes a really huge time to process file, so I decided to write this part in C++. However, I know nothing about C++ regex, and I'm looking for help. Could you, please, recommend me an easy regex library (I don't know C++ very well) or the well-documented one? It would be even better, if you provide a small example (I know how to perform transmission to file, using fstream, but I need help with how to read file as I said before).
This looks like a job for std::locale and his trusty sidekick imbue:
#include <locale>
#include <iostream>
struct hash_is_space : std::ctype<char> {
hash_is_space() : std::ctype<char>(get_table()) {}
static mask const* get_table()
{
static mask rc[table_size];
rc['#'] = std::ctype_base::space;
return &rc[0];
}
};
int main() {
using std::string;
using std::cin;
using std::locale;
cin.imbue(locale(cin.getloc(), new hash_is_space));
string word;
while(cin >> word) {
std::cout << word << " ";
}
std::cout << "\n";
}
IMO, C++ is not the best choice for your task. But if you have to do it in C++ I would suggest you have a look at Boost.Regex, part of the Boost library.
If you are on Unix, a simple sed 's/#/ /' <infile >outfile would suffice.
Sed stands for 'stream editor' (and supports regexes! whoo!), so it would be well-suited for the performance that you are looking for.
Alright, I'm just going to make this an answer instead of a comment. Don't use regex. It's almost certainly overkill for this task. I'm a little rusty with C++, so I'll not post any ugly code, but essentially what you could do is parse the file one character at a time, putting anything that wasn't a # into a buffer, then writing it out to the output file along with a space when you do hit a #. In C# at least two really easy methods for solving this come to mind:
StreamReader fileReader = new StreamReader(new FileStream("myFile.txt"),
FileMode.Open);
string fileContents = fileReader.ReadToEnd();
string outFileContents = fileContents.Replace("#", " ");
StreamWriter outFileWriter = new StreamWriter(new FileStream("outFile.txt"),
Encoding.UTF8);
outFileWriter.Write(outFileContents);
outFileWriter.Flush();
Alternatively, you could replace
string outFileContents = fileContents.Replace("#", " ");
With
StringBuilder outFileContents = new StringBuilder();
string[] parts = fileContents.Split("#");
foreach (string part in parts)
{
outFileContents.Append(part);
outFileContents.Append(" ");
}
I'm not saying you should do it either of these ways or my suggested method for C++, nor that any of these methods are ideal - I'm just pointing out here that there are many many ways to parse strings. Regex is awesome and powerful and may even save the day in extreme circumstances, but it's not the only way to parse text, and may even destroy the world if used for the wrong thing. Really.
If you insist on using regex (or are forced to, as in for a homework assignment), then I suggest you listen to Chris and use Boost.Regex. Alternatively, I understand Boost has a good string library as well if you'd like to try something else. Just look out for Cthulhu if you do use regex.
You've left out one crucial point: if you have two (or more) consecutive #s in the input, should they turn into one space, or the same number of spaces are there are #s?
If you want to turn the entire string into a single space, then #Rob's solution should work quite nicely.
If you want each # turned into a space, then it's probably easiest to just write C-style code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
int ch;
while (EOF!=(ch=getchar()))
if (ch == '#')
putchar(' ');
else
putchar(ch);
return 0;
}
So, you want to replace each ONE character '#' with ONE character ' ' , right ?
Then it's easy to do since you can replace any portion of the file with string of exactly the same length without perturbating the organisation of the file.
Repeating such a replacement allows to make transformation of the file chunk by chunk; so you avoid to read all the file in memory, which is problematic when the file is very big.
Here's the code in Python 2.7 .
Maybe, the replacement chunk by chunk will be unsifficient to make it faster and you'll have a hard time to write the same in C++. But in general, when I proposed such codes, it has increased the execution's time satisfactorily.
def treat_file(file_path, chunk_size):
from os import fsync
from os.path import getsize
file_size = getsize(file_path)
with open(file_path,'rb+') as g:
fd = g.fileno() # file descriptor, it's an integer
while True:
x = g.read(chunk_size)
g.seek(- len(x),1)
g.write(x.replace('#',' '))
g.flush()
fsync(fd)
if g.tell() == file_size:
break
Comments:
open(file_path,'rb+')
it's absolutely obligatory to open the file in binary mode 'b' to control precisely the positions and movements of the file's pointer;
mode '+' is to be able to read AND write in the file
fd = g.fileno()
file descriptor, it's an integer
x = g.read(chunk_size)
reads a chunk of size chunk_size . It would be tricky to give it the size of the reading buffer, but I don't know how to find this buffer's size. Hence a good idea is to give it a power of 2 value.
g.seek(- len(x),1)
the file's pointer is moved back to the position from which the reading of the chunk has just been made. It must be len(x), not chunk_size because the last chunk read is in general less long than chink_size
g.write(x.replace('#',' '))
writes on the same length with the modified chunk
g.flush()
fsync(fd)
these two instructions force the writing, otherwise the modified chunk could remain in the writing buffer and written at uncontrolled moment
if g.tell() >= file_size: break
after the reading of the last portion of file , whatever is its length (less or equal to chunk_size), the file's pointer is at the maximum position of the file, that is to say file_size and the program must stop
.
In case you would like to replace several consecutive '###...' with only one, the code is easily modifiable to respect this requirement, since writing a shortened chunk doesn't erase characters still unread more far in the file. It only needs 2 files's pointers.
So i have a gui, designed using QT, c++. I have large amount of data in a text file that I would like to read in this fashion:
load first 50 lines, when the user scrolls down load next 50 lines and so one. When the user scrolls up load previous 50 lines.
Thank you.
The easiest solution would be to load the file into memory and manipulate it from there:
std::vector<std::string> lines;
std::string line;
while(std::getline(file,line)
{
lines.push_back(line);
}
If the file is way to large.
Then you need to build an index of the file that tells you exactly where each line starts.
std::vector<std::streampos> index;
index.push_back(file.tellg());
std::string line;
while(std::getline(file,line)
{
index.push_back(file.tellg());
}
file.setg(0);
file.clear(); // Resets the EOF flag.
Once you have your index. You can jump around the file and read any particular line.
int jumpTo = 50;
file.seekg(index[jumpTo]); // Jump to line 50.
//
// Read 50 lines. Do not read past the end
// This will set the EOF flag and future reads will fail.
for(int loop=0;loop < 50 && ((jumpTo + loop) < index.size());++loop)
{
std::string line;
std::getline(file,line);
}
Connect your app to the sliderMoved or sliderReleased signals of your QSlider and read the 50 lines you want to display. Or use the valueChange event.
I am guessing that this file may be huge (say in the Gigabyte range).
Assuming that portability is not an issue, you may want to use memory mapped io. On many unix systems you have the mmap command.
A nice tutorial can be found here.
If you need to do this for windows systems A windows equivalent example can be found here.
What mmap effectively does is maps the file into the current processes memory space. When one wants to read a bit of the file, the OS copies the bits of the file being looked at into RAM for the user to access. This is done using the same mechanism that allows the OS to move memory from idle processes onto disk until it is required again.
The only tricky bit will be dividing the file blocks into lines.