>>> n = [1,2,3,4]
>>> filter(lambda x:x>3,n)
>>> len(filter(lambda x:x>3,n))
Traceback
Generally, filter
and reduce
are not pythonic.
@arshajii metioned this solution:
len([x for x in n if x > 3])
This is quite simple, but is not describing what you exactly want to do, and it makes a list that may use some additional memory.
A better solution is using sum
with generator:
sum(1 for x in n if x > 3)
(See more about generator here: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0289/#rationale)
However, sum
with generator is actually slower in most cases because of the implementation (tested in CPython 3.6.4):
In [1]: %timeit len([1 for x in range(10000000)])
356 ms ± 17.4 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
In [2]: %timeit sum(1 for x in range(10000000))
676 ms ± 7.05 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
The docs for python 3 say it returns an iterator
"Construct an iterator from those elements of iterable for which function returns true."
In python 2 it returned a list: see here. You will need to iterate the filter object to find its length.
This is an old question, but I think this question needs an answer using the map-reduce ideology. So here:
from functools import reduce
def ilen(iterable):
return reduce(lambda sum, element: sum + 1, iterable, 0)
ilen(filter(lambda x: x > 3, n))
This is especially good if n
doesn't fit in the computer memory.
You have to iterate through the filter object somehow. One way is to convert it to a list:
l = list(filter(lambda x: x > 3, n))
len(l) # <--
But that might defeat the point of using filter()
in the first place, since you could do this more easily with a list comprehension:
l = [x for x in n if x > 3]
Again, len(l)
will return the length.
Converting a filter to a list will take extra memory, which may not be acceptable for large amounts of data. You can find length of the filter object without converting it to a list:
sum(1 for _ in filter(lambda x: x > 3, n))