Most efficient method to empty the contents of a file
Solution 1
Actually, the second form touch filename
doesn't delete anything from the file - it only creates an empty file if one did not exist, or updates the last-modified date of an existing file.
And the third filename < /dev/null
tries to run filename with /dev/null
as input.
cp /dev/null filename
works.
As for efficient, the most efficient would be truncate -s 0 filename
(see here).
Otherwise, cp /dev/null filename
or > filename
are both fine. They both open and then close the file, using the truncate-on-open setting. cp
also opens /dev/null
, so that makes it marginally slower.
On the other hand, truncate
would likely be slower than > filename
when run from a script since running the truncate command requires the system to open the executable, load it, and then run it.
Solution 2
Other option could be:
echo -n > filename
From the man page of echo
:
-n Do not print the trailing newline character.
Solution 3
There is a builtin command ":", which is available in sh,csh,bash and others maybe, which can be easily used with the redirecting output operator >
truncate a file:
#!/usr/bin/env bash
:> filename
What I like on this is, that it does not need any external commands like "echo" etc.
One big advantage of truncating files instead of deleate/recreate them is, that running applications which works with this file (e.g. someone makes an tail -f filename
or a monitoring software, ...) don't have to reopen it. They just can continue using the filedescriptor and gets all the new data.
Related videos on Youtube
debal
Updated on September 18, 2022Comments
-
debal over 1 year
I am aware of three methods to delete all entries from a file.
They are
>filename
-
touch filename
1 filename < /dev/null
Of these three I abuse
>filename
the most as that requires the least number of keystrokes.However, I would like to know which is the most efficient of the three (if there are any more efficient methods) with respect to large log files and small files.
Also, how does the three codes operate and delete the contents?
1Edit: as discussed in this answer, this actually does not clear the file!
-
Robert Strauch almost 10 yearsWhat about
truncate -s 0 filename
? -
Stéphane Chazelas over 8 yearsVery similar to Difference between cat and '>' to zero out a file where you'll find more information.
-
Marco Marsala over 8 yearsThe first will work only if called from bash command line, but won't work if executed in a .sh file
-
hbogert over 7 yearstouch does not delete contents, but does change access time on the file. It does create an empty file if none existed.
-
Stéphane Chazelas over 10 yearsSo why do you say that
truncate
is the most efficient? -
ash over 10 yearsThe truncate operation uses the ftruncate() or truncate() system call which does not bother to open the file. It also avoids the close() system call that cp and
> filename
methods need to call. -
Stéphane Chazelas over 10 yearsActually, it (at least the GNU one) does an open+ftruncate+close (in addition to the many system calls it does to load and initialise itself), as anyway, it would have to create the file if it didn't exist and
truncate(2)
doesn't do that. -
The Greeny over 10 yearsIf we use
touch filename
, will the inode remain same (provided there was a file before)? -
terdon over 10 years@pMan yes, you can try it and check with
ls -i
-
javaPlease42 about 10 yearsI get this error
truncate: not found.
. What is the next best option since I cannot add the truncate function to this environment. -
Nathan Basanese over 8 years// , Doesn't
cp /dev/null filename
lose the file ownership and permissions? -
ash over 8 years/dev/null is owned by root and has very open file permissions, so that's probably a good thing. It will use the default settings (based on umask) when creating the new file.
-
Sridhar Sarnobat about 8 yearsThe nice thing about truncate is that you can do it on multiple files in a single command without complicating things with
xargs
etc -
aalaap almost 8 yearsI feel
>filename
is the most efficient, because its faster to type.truncate
may be technically faster, but it will never really be faster than>
because you'll have to type outtruncate -s 0 filename
. -
ash almost 8 years@aalaap - if we're talking about speed of typing out commands, then I agree with you, that's probably about as fast as you can get. When talking about efficiency of the operation itself, such as when trying to keep down the overhead of truncating very rapidly (such as > 100 times per second), then the answer is very different.
-
aalaap almost 8 years@ash Yes, I understand that. I was talking about a practical, real-world comparison between the two.
-
Dani_l over 7 years@aalaap your comment is not necessarily practical. If I have to truncate often, I would just function it to a short alias, and the keystroke count would be similar, so not an issue. However, if I do have to truncate very often, as on the order of 10k files, the issue of keystrokes is negligible compared to runtime.
-
Polyphil over 7 yearsHow can I set the size? Say if I want 30000 null characters?
-
ash almost 7 yearsThere are shell settings, and more advanced syntax, that will prevent overwriting existing files. Look for the
NO_CLOBBER
option.set -o clobber
will enable the file to be clobbered. Also,>|
appears to override the noclobber setting -
Haxiel over 5 years
man bash
describes the:
shell builtin as having no effect. -
Mirko Steiner over 5 yearsYes, and you redirect this with
>
in to the file, which creates the file if it does not exists, and if it exists you truncate it to zero. Better said: you use the:
to do nothing, and use>
to redirect nothing to a file, and truncate it. -
terdon over 5 yearsWhy would you do that?
> file
is enough to truncate a file. You don't need any command, just the redirection operator. -
leleonp over 5 yearssometimes,
> filename
won't work. for example, in zsh. but: > filename
works still. -
Mirko Steiner over 5 yearsBash and sh seems to like
> myfile
but e.g. csh errors with: Invalid null command.