782

I need to repeatedly remove the first line from a huge text file using a bash script.

Right now I am using sed -i -e "1d" $FILE - but it takes around a minute to do the deletion.

Is there a more efficient way to accomplish this?

3
  • what does -i stand for?
    – cikatomo
    Commented Mar 9, 2013 at 23:30
  • 4
    @cikatomo: it stands for inline edit - it edits the file with whatever you generate. Commented May 3, 2013 at 18:03
  • 7
    tail is MUCH SLOWER than sed. tail needs 13.5s, sed needs 0.85s. My file has ~1M lines, ~100MB. MacBook Air 2013 with SSD. Commented Feb 1, 2016 at 16:15

21 Answers 21

1383

Try tail:

tail -n +2 "$FILE"

-n x: Just print the last x lines. tail -n 5 would give you the last 5 lines of the input. The + sign kind of inverts the argument and make tail print anything but the first x-1 lines. tail -n +1 would print the whole file, tail -n +2 everything but the first line, etc.

GNU tail is much faster than sed. tail is also available on BSD and the -n +2 flag is consistent across both tools. Check the FreeBSD or OS X man pages for more.

The BSD version can be much slower than sed, though. I wonder how they managed that; tail should just read a file line by line while sed does pretty complex operations involving interpreting a script, applying regular expressions and the like.

Note: You may be tempted to use

# THIS WILL GIVE YOU AN EMPTY FILE!
tail -n +2 "$FILE" > "$FILE"

but this will give you an empty file. The reason is that the redirection (>) happens before tail is invoked by the shell:

  1. Shell truncates file $FILE
  2. Shell creates a new process for tail
  3. Shell redirects stdout of the tail process to $FILE
  4. tail reads from the now empty $FILE

If you want to remove the first line inside the file, you should use:

tail -n +2 "$FILE" > "$FILE.tmp" && mv "$FILE.tmp" "$FILE"

The && will make sure that the file doesn't get overwritten when there is a problem.

24
  • 3
    According to this ss64.com/bash/tail.html the typical buffer defaults to 32k when using BSD 'tail' with the -r option. Maybe there's a buffer setting somewhere in the system? Or -n is a 32-bit signed number? Commented Nov 10, 2011 at 0:49
  • 43
    @Eddie: user869097 said it doesn't work when a single line is 15Mb or more. As long as the lines are shorter, tail will work for any file size. Commented Feb 14, 2013 at 16:21
  • 2
    oops. thanks for correcting me. WOw, 15mb line.. I can't even imagine such a case.
    – Eddie
    Commented Feb 15, 2013 at 15:11
  • 2
    @Dreampuf: sed has an internal buffer for the current line while tail can get away by just remembering the offset of the N last newline characters (note that I didn't actually look at the sources). Commented Feb 11, 2014 at 8:28
  • 14
    I was going to concur with @JonaChristopherSahnwaldt -- tail is much, much slower than the sed variant, by an order of magnitude. I'm testing it on a file of 500,000K lines (no more than 50 chars per line). However, I then realized I was using the FreeBSD version of tail (which comes with OS X by default). When I switched to GNU tail, the tail call was 10 times faster than the sed call (and the GNU sed call, too). AaronDigulla is correct here, if you're using GNU.
    – dancow
    Commented Aug 18, 2016 at 20:59
348

With sed, the pattern '1d' will delete the first line. Additionally, the -i flag can be used to update the file "in place". 1

sed -i '1d' filename

1 sed -i automatically creates a temporary file with the desired changes, and then replaces the original file.

12
  • 16
    this works every time and should really be the top answer!
    – xtheking
    Commented Mar 28, 2017 at 13:23
  • 13
    Just to remember, Mac requires a suffix to be provided when using sed with in-place edits. So run the above with -i.bak
    – mjp
    Commented May 10, 2017 at 18:00
  • 14
    Just a note - to remove several lines use sed -i '1,2d' filename Commented May 24, 2018 at 9:08
  • 8
    This version is really much more readable, and more universal, than tail -n +2. Not sure why it isn't the top answer.
    – Luke Davis
    Commented Jun 26, 2018 at 19:43
  • 3
    Works on Ubuntu (GNU) but for OS X (BSD) I had to change it to sed -i '' '1d' filename. Per stackoverflow.com/questions/16745988/… Commented May 27, 2020 at 10:40
86

For those who are on SunOS which is non-GNU, the following code will help:

sed '1d' test.dat > tmp.dat 
2
  • 51
    Interesting demographic
    – captain
    Commented Jul 15, 2015 at 1:39
  • 1
    @ValerioBozz It's kinda weird revisiting this comment after almost a decade lol. I don't even remember it. But I was just pointing out that this answer is for SunOS which was last released in 1998. Very few if any use it
    – captain
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 19:14
22

You can easily do this with:

cat filename | sed 1d > filename_without_first_line

on the command line; or to remove the first line of a file permanently, use the in-place mode of sed with the -i flag:

sed -i 1d <filename>
1
  • 3
    The -i option technically takes an argument specifying the file suffix to use when making a backup of the file (e.g. sed -I .bak 1d filename creates a copy called filename.bak of the original file with the first line intact). While GNU sed lets you specify -i without an argument to skip the backup, BSD sed, as found on macOS, requires an empty string argument as a separate shell word (e.g. sed -i '' ...).
    – Mark Reed
    Commented Dec 24, 2020 at 21:21
18

The sponge util avoids the need for juggling a temp file:

tail -n +2 "$FILE" | sponge "$FILE"
4
  • 2
    sponge is indeed much cleaner and more robust than the accepted solution (tail -n +2 "$FILE" > "$FILE.tmp" && mv "$FILE.tmp" "$FILE")
    – Jealie
    Commented Dec 19, 2017 at 0:25
  • This is the only solution that worked for me to change a system file (on a Debian docker image). Other solutions failed due to "Device or resource busy" error when attempting to write the file.
    – FedFranz
    Commented Jan 22, 2018 at 15:37
  • 2
    But does sponge buffer the whole file in memory? That won't work if it's hundreds of GB.
    – OrangeDog
    Commented Jul 3, 2019 at 16:05
  • 2
    @OrangeDog, So long as the file system can store it, sponge will soak it up, since it uses a /tmp file as an intermediate step, which is then used to replace the original afterward.
    – agc
    Commented Jul 3, 2019 at 20:52
15

No, that's about as efficient as you're going to get. You could write a C program which could do the job a little faster (less startup time and processing arguments) but it will probably tend towards the same speed as sed as files get large (and I assume they're large if it's taking a minute).

But your question suffers from the same problem as so many others in that it pre-supposes the solution. If you were to tell us in detail what you're trying to do rather then how, we may be able to suggest a better option.

For example, if this is a file A that some other program B processes, one solution would be to not strip off the first line, but modify program B to process it differently.

Let's say all your programs append to this file A and program B currently reads and processes the first line before deleting it.

You could re-engineer program B so that it didn't try to delete the first line but maintains a persistent (probably file-based) offset into the file A so that, next time it runs, it could seek to that offset, process the line there, and update the offset.

Then, at a quiet time (midnight?), it could do special processing of file A to delete all lines currently processed and set the offset back to 0.

It will certainly be faster for a program to open and seek a file rather than open and rewrite. This discussion assumes you have control over program B, of course. I don't know if that's the case but there may be other possible solutions if you provide further information.

2
  • I think the OP is trying to achieve what made me find this question. I have 10 CSV files with 500k lines in each. Every file has the same header row as the first line. I am cat:ing these files into one file and then importing them into a DB letting the DB create column names from the first line. Obviously I don't want that line repeated in file 2-10.
    – d-b
    Commented Apr 12, 2018 at 13:21
  • 5
    @d-b In that case, awk FNR-1 *.csv is probably faster.
    – jinawee
    Commented Jan 29, 2019 at 9:50
13

If you want to modify the file in place, you could always use the original ed instead of its streaming successor sed:

ed "$FILE" <<<$'1d\nwq\n'

The ed command was the original UNIX text editor, before there were even full-screen terminals, much less graphical workstations. The ex editor, best known as what you're using when typing at the colon prompt in vi, is an extended version of ed, so many of the same commands work. While ed is meant to be used interactively, it can also be used in batch mode by sending a string of commands to it, which is what this solution does.

The sequence <<<$'1d\nwq\n' takes advantage of modern shells' support for here-strings (<<<) and ANSI quotes ($'...') to feed input to the ed command consisting of two lines: 1d, which deletes line 1, and then wq, which writes the file back out to disk and then quits the editing session.

2
  • But you have to read the whole file into memory, which won't work if it's hundreds of GB.
    – OrangeDog
    Commented Jul 3, 2019 at 15:54
  • 1
    works on a Mac without any manipulation (zsh). Commented Jun 1, 2021 at 2:12
11

As Pax said, you probably aren't going to get any faster than this. The reason is that there are almost no filesystems that support truncating from the beginning of the file so this is going to be an O(n) operation where n is the size of the file. What you can do much faster though is overwrite the first line with the same number of bytes (maybe with spaces or a comment) which might work for you depending on exactly what you are trying to do (what is that by the way?).

2
  • 1
    Re "...almost no filesystems that support truncating...": that's interesting; please consider including a parenthetical note naming such a filesystem.
    – agc
    Commented Mar 6, 2019 at 11:23
  • 5
    @agc: irrelevant now, but my first job in the '70s was with Quadex, a small startup (now gone, and unrelated to the two companies now using that name). They had a filesystem which allowed adding or removing at either beginning or end of a file, used mostly to implement editing in less than 3KB by putting above-window and below-window in files. It had no name of its own, it was just part of QMOS, the Quadex Multiuser Operating System. ('Multi' was usually 2-3 on an LSI-11/02 with under 64KB RAM and usually a few RX01-type 8" floppy disks each 250KB.) :-) Commented Nov 24, 2019 at 7:15
11

You can edit the files in place: Just use perl's -i flag, like this:

perl -ni -e 'print unless $. == 1' filename.txt

This makes the first line disappear, as you ask. Perl will need to read and copy the entire file, but it arranges for the output to be saved under the name of the original file.

7

should show the lines except the first line :

cat textfile.txt | tail -n +2
2
  • 4
    - you shoud do "tail -n +2 textfile.txt"
    – niglesias
    Commented Nov 4, 2016 at 17:48
  • 6
    @niglesiais I disagree with the "useless use of cat", as it makes clear that this solution is ok on piped content and not only files.
    – Titou
    Commented Jan 3, 2017 at 12:51
6

Could use vim to do this:

vim -u NONE +'1d' +'wq!' /tmp/test.txt

This should be faster, since vim won't read whole file when process.

2
  • May need to quote the +wq! if your shell is bash. Probably not since the ! is not at the beginning of a word, but getting in the habit of quoting things is probably good all around. (And if you're going for super-efficiency by not quoting unnecessarily, you don't need the quotes around the 1d either.)
    – Mark Reed
    Commented May 15, 2018 at 18:52
  • 1
    vim does need to read the whole file. In fact if the file is larger than memory, as asked in this Q, vim reads the whole file and writes it (or most of it) to a temp file, and after editting writes it all back (to the permanent file). I don't know how you think it could possibly work without this. Commented Nov 24, 2019 at 7:03
5

How about using csplit?

man csplit
csplit -k file 1 '{1}'
1
  • This syntax would also work, but only generate two output files instead of three: csplit file /^.*$/1. Or more simply: csplit file //1. Or even more simply: csplit file 2.
    – Marco Roy
    Commented Jan 21, 2016 at 23:39
5

This one liner will do:

echo "$(tail -n +2 "$FILE")" > "$FILE"

It works, since tail is executed prior to echo and then the file is unlocked, hence no need for a temp file.

1

Since it sounds like I can't speed up the deletion, I think a good approach might be to process the file in batches like this:

While file1 not empty
  file2 = head -n1000 file1
  process file2
  sed -i -e "1000d" file1
end

The drawback of this is that if the program gets killed in the middle (or if there's some bad sql in there - causing the "process" part to die or lock-up), there will be lines that are either skipped, or processed twice.

(file1 contains lines of sql code)

1
  • What does the first line contain? Can you just overwrite it with a sql comment as I suggested in my post? Commented Dec 4, 2008 at 3:58
1
tail +2 path/to/your/file

works for me, no need to specify the -n flag. For reasons, see Aaron's answer.

1

You can use the sed command to delete arbitrary lines by line number

# create multi line txt file
echo """1. first
2. second
3. third""" > file.txt

deleting lines and printing to stdout

$ sed '1d' file.txt 
2. second
3. third

$ sed '2d' file.txt 
1. first
3. third

$ sed '3d' file.txt 
1. first
2. second

# delete multi lines
$ sed '1,2d' file.txt 
3. third

# delete the last line
sed '$d' file.txt 
1. first
2. second

use the -i option to edit the file in-place

$ cat file.txt 
1. first
2. second
3. third

$ sed -i '1d' file.txt

$cat file.txt 
2. second
3. third
0

If what you are looking to do is recover after failure, you could just build up a file that has what you've done so far.

if [[ -f $tmpf ]] ; then
    rm -f $tmpf
fi
cat $srcf |
    while read line ; do
        # process line
        echo "$line" >> $tmpf
    done
0

Based on 3 other answers, I came up with this syntax that works perfectly in my Mac OSx bash shell:

line=$(head -n1 list.txt && echo "$(tail -n +2 list.txt)" > list.txt)

Test case:

~> printf "Line #%2d\n" {1..3} > list.txt
~> cat list.txt
Line # 1
Line # 2
Line # 3
~> line=$(head -n1 list.txt && echo "$(tail -n +2 list.txt)" > list.txt)
~> echo $line
Line # 1
~> cat list.txt
Line # 2
Line # 3
0

Also check these ways :

mapfile -t lines < 1.txt && printf "%s\n" "${lines[@]:1}" > new.txt

#OR

awk 'NR>1' old.txt > new.txt

#OR

cut -d $'\n' -f 2- old.txt > new.txt
0

For truly in-place deletion of lines at the head of a file:

$ cat file
1
2
3
4
5

$ bytes=$(head -1 file |wc -c)

$ dd if=file bs="$bytes" skip=1 conv=notrunc of=file
4+0 records in
4+0 records out
8 bytes copied, 0.0002447 s, 32.7 kB/s

$ truncate -s "-$bytes" file

$ cat file
2
3
4
5

It will be orders of magnitude slower than using sed -i '1d' or similar that use a temp file though so only use it if you don't have enough disk space to make a copy of the input file.

-1

Would using tail on N-1 lines and directing that into a file, followed by removing the old file, and renaming the new file to the old name do the job?

If i were doing this programatically, i would read through the file, and remember the file offset, after reading each line, so i could seek back to that position to read the file with one less line in it.

3
  • The first solution is essentially identical to that Brent is doing now. I don't understand your programmatic approach, only the first line needs to be deleted, you would just read and discard the first line and copy the rest to another file which is again the same as the sed and tail approaches. Commented Dec 4, 2008 at 3:56
  • The second solution has the implication that the file is not shrunk by the first line each time. The program simply processes it, as if it had been shrunk, but starting at the next line each time
    – EvilTeach
    Commented Dec 4, 2008 at 14:27
  • I still don't understand what you second solution is. Commented Dec 4, 2008 at 19:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.