ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to find length of digits in an integer?

In Python, how do you find the number of digits in an integer?

I don't understand your question. Did you mean the size of an integer? Do you want to find the number of digits? Please clarify.

A
Alois Mahdal

If you want the length of an integer as in the number of digits in the integer, you can always convert it to string like str(133) and find its length like len(str(123)).


Of course, if you're looking for the number of digits, this will produce a result that's too large for negative numbers, since it will count the negative sign.
Hey, this is a slow solution. I did a factorial of a random 6 digit number, and found its length. This method took 95.891 seconds. And Math.log10 method took only 7.486343383789062e-05 seconds, approximately 1501388 times faster!
This isn't just slow, but consumes way more memory and can cause trouble in large numbers. use Math.log10 instead.
len(str(0)) is 1
But isn't the number of digits in '0' equals to 1?
J
John La Rooy

Without conversion to string

import math
digits = int(math.log10(n))+1

To also handle zero and negative numbers

import math
if n > 0:
    digits = int(math.log10(n))+1
elif n == 0:
    digits = 1
else:
    digits = int(math.log10(-n))+2 # +1 if you don't count the '-' 

You'd probably want to put that in a function :)

Here are some benchmarks. The len(str()) is already behind for even quite small numbers

timeit math.log10(2**8)
1000000 loops, best of 3: 746 ns per loop
timeit len(str(2**8))
1000000 loops, best of 3: 1.1 µs per loop

timeit math.log10(2**100)
1000000 loops, best of 3: 775 ns per loop
 timeit len(str(2**100))
100000 loops, best of 3: 3.2 µs per loop

timeit math.log10(2**10000)
1000000 loops, best of 3: 844 ns per loop
timeit len(str(2**10000))
100 loops, best of 3: 10.3 ms per loop

Using log10 for this is a mathematician's solution; using len(str()) is a programmer's solution, and is clearer and simpler.
@Glenn: I certainly hope you aren't implying this is a bad solution. The programmer's naive O(log10 n) solution works well in ad-hoc, prototyping code -- but I'd much rather see mathematicians elegant O(1) solution in production code or a public API. +1 for gnibbler.
Hi! I go something strange, can Anyone of You please explain me why int(math.log10(x)) +1 for 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (71 nines) returns 72 ? I thought that I could rely on log10 method but I have to use len(str(x)) instead :(
I believe i know the reason for the strange behaviour, it is due to floating point inaccuracies eg. math.log10(999999999999999) is equal to 14.999999999999998 so int(math.log10(999999999999999)) becomes 14. But then math.log10(9999999999999999) is equal to 16.0. Maybe using round is a solution to this problem.
With some more testing: under 10**12, len(str(n)) is the fastest. Above that, plain log10 is always the fastest, but above 10**15, it's incorrect. Only at around 10**100 does my solution (~log10 with the 10**b check) begins to beat out len(str(n)). In conclusion, use len(str(n)) !
C
Calvintwr

All math.log10 solutions will give you problems.

math.log10 is fast but gives problem when your number is greater than 999999999999997. This is because the float have too many .9s, causing the result to round up.

The solution is to use a while counter method for numbers above that threshold.

To make this even faster, create 10^16, 10^17 so on so forth and store as variables in a list. That way, it is like a table lookup.

def getIntegerPlaces(theNumber):
    if theNumber <= 999999999999997:
        return int(math.log10(theNumber)) + 1
    else:
        counter = 15
        while theNumber >= 10**counter:
            counter += 1
        return counter

Thank you. That is a good counter-example for math.log10. It's interesting to see how binary representation flips the values giving mathematically incorrect result.
then len(str(num)) would be better
@Vighnesh Raut: And magnitudes slower
"It is dangerous to rely on floating-point operations giving exact results" - Mark Dickinson, a member of core Python development team bugs.python.org/issue3724
def getIntegerPlaces(theNumber): if theNumber <= 999999999999997: return int(math.log10(abs(theNumber))) + 1 else: return int(math.log10(abs(theNumber)))
J
Jack Moody

It's been several years since this question was asked, but I have compiled a benchmark of several methods to calculate the length of an integer.

def libc_size(i): 
    return libc.snprintf(buf, 100, c_char_p(b'%i'), i) # equivalent to `return snprintf(buf, 100, "%i", i);`

def str_size(i):
    return len(str(i)) # Length of `i` as a string

def math_size(i):
    return 1 + math.floor(math.log10(i)) # 1 + floor of log10 of i

def exp_size(i):
    return int("{:.5e}".format(i).split("e")[1]) + 1 # e.g. `1e10` -> `10` + 1 -> 11

def mod_size(i):
    return len("%i" % i) # Uses string modulo instead of str(i)

def fmt_size(i):
    return len("{0}".format(i)) # Same as above but str.format

(the libc function requires some setup, which I haven't included)

size_exp is thanks to Brian Preslopsky, size_str is thanks to GeekTantra, and size_math is thanks to John La Rooy

Here are the results:

Time for libc size:      1.2204 μs
Time for string size:    309.41 ns
Time for math size:      329.54 ns
Time for exp size:       1.4902 μs
Time for mod size:       249.36 ns
Time for fmt size:       336.63 ns
In order of speed (fastest first):
+ mod_size (1.000000x)
+ str_size (1.240835x)
+ math_size (1.321577x)
+ fmt_size (1.350007x)
+ libc_size (4.894290x)
+ exp_size (5.976219x)

(Disclaimer: the function is run on inputs 1 to 1,000,000)

Here are the results for sys.maxsize - 100000 to sys.maxsize:

Time for libc size:      1.4686 μs
Time for string size:    395.76 ns
Time for math size:      485.94 ns
Time for exp size:       1.6826 μs
Time for mod size:       364.25 ns
Time for fmt size:       453.06 ns
In order of speed (fastest first):
+ mod_size (1.000000x)
+ str_size (1.086498x)
+ fmt_size (1.243817x)
+ math_size (1.334066x)
+ libc_size (4.031780x)
+ exp_size (4.619188x)

As you can see, mod_size (len("%i" % i)) is the fastest, slightly faster than using str(i) and significantly faster than others.


You really should include the libc setup, libc = ctyle.CDLL('libc.so.6', use_errno=True) (guessing this is it). And it doesn't work for numbers greater than sys.maxsize because floating point numbers can't be "very large". So any number above that, I guess you're stuck with one of the slower methods.
A
Alex Martelli

Python 2.* ints take either 4 or 8 bytes (32 or 64 bits), depending on your Python build. sys.maxint (2**31-1 for 32-bit ints, 2**63-1 for 64-bit ints) will tell you which of the two possibilities obtains.

In Python 3, ints (like longs in Python 2) can take arbitrary sizes up to the amount of available memory; sys.getsizeof gives you a good indication for any given value, although it does also count some fixed overhead:

>>> import sys
>>> sys.getsizeof(0)
12
>>> sys.getsizeof(2**99)
28

If, as other answers suggests, you're thinking about some string representation of the integer value, then just take the len of that representation, be it in base 10 or otherwise!


Sorry this answer got minus-ed. It is informative and to the plausible point of the question (if it were only more specific about which 'len' is desired). +1
This looks interesting but not sure how to extract the length
B
BiGYaN

Let the number be n then the number of digits in n is given by:

math.floor(math.log10(n))+1

Note that this will give correct answers for +ve integers < 10e15. Beyond that the precision limits of the return type of math.log10 kicks in and the answer may be off by 1. I would simply use len(str(n)) beyond that; this requires O(log(n)) time which is same as iterating over powers of 10.

Thanks to @SetiVolkylany for bringing my attenstion to this limitation. Its amazing how seemingly correct solutions have caveats in implementation details.


It does not work if n outside of range [-999999999999997, 999999999999997]
@SetiVolkylany, I tested it till 50 digits for python2.7 and 3.5. Just do a assert list(range(1,51)) == [math.floor(math.log10(n))+1 for n in (10**e for e in range(50))].
try it with the Python2.7 or the Python3.5 >>> math.floor(math.log10(999999999999997))+1 15.0 >>> math.floor(math.log10(999999999999998))+1 16.0. Look my answer stackoverflow.com/a/42736085/6003870.
o
odradek

Well, without converting to string I would do something like:

def lenDigits(x): 
    """
    Assumes int(x)
    """

    x = abs(x)

    if x < 10:
        return 1

    return 1 + lenDigits(x / 10)

Minimalist recursion FTW


You will reach the recursion limit for large numbers.
C
Community

As mentioned the dear user @Calvintwr, the function math.log10 has problem in a number outside of a range [-999999999999997, 999999999999997], where we get floating point errors. I had this problem with the JavaScript (the Google V8 and the NodeJS) and the C (the GNU GCC compiler), so a 'purely mathematically' solution is impossible here.

Based on this gist and the answer the dear user @Calvintwr

import math


def get_count_digits(number: int):
    """Return number of digits in a number."""

    if number == 0:
        return 1

    number = abs(number)

    if number <= 999999999999997:
        return math.floor(math.log10(number)) + 1

    count = 0
    while number:
        count += 1
        number //= 10
    return count

I tested it on numbers with length up to 20 (inclusive) and all right. It must be enough, because the length max integer number on a 64-bit system is 19 (len(str(sys.maxsize)) == 19).

assert get_count_digits(-99999999999999999999) == 20
assert get_count_digits(-10000000000000000000) == 20
assert get_count_digits(-9999999999999999999) == 19
assert get_count_digits(-1000000000000000000) == 19
assert get_count_digits(-999999999999999999) == 18
assert get_count_digits(-100000000000000000) == 18
assert get_count_digits(-99999999999999999) == 17
assert get_count_digits(-10000000000000000) == 17
assert get_count_digits(-9999999999999999) == 16
assert get_count_digits(-1000000000000000) == 16
assert get_count_digits(-999999999999999) == 15
assert get_count_digits(-100000000000000) == 15
assert get_count_digits(-99999999999999) == 14
assert get_count_digits(-10000000000000) == 14
assert get_count_digits(-9999999999999) == 13
assert get_count_digits(-1000000000000) == 13
assert get_count_digits(-999999999999) == 12
assert get_count_digits(-100000000000) == 12
assert get_count_digits(-99999999999) == 11
assert get_count_digits(-10000000000) == 11
assert get_count_digits(-9999999999) == 10
assert get_count_digits(-1000000000) == 10
assert get_count_digits(-999999999) == 9
assert get_count_digits(-100000000) == 9
assert get_count_digits(-99999999) == 8
assert get_count_digits(-10000000) == 8
assert get_count_digits(-9999999) == 7
assert get_count_digits(-1000000) == 7
assert get_count_digits(-999999) == 6
assert get_count_digits(-100000) == 6
assert get_count_digits(-99999) == 5
assert get_count_digits(-10000) == 5
assert get_count_digits(-9999) == 4
assert get_count_digits(-1000) == 4
assert get_count_digits(-999) == 3
assert get_count_digits(-100) == 3
assert get_count_digits(-99) == 2
assert get_count_digits(-10) == 2
assert get_count_digits(-9) == 1
assert get_count_digits(-1) == 1
assert get_count_digits(0) == 1
assert get_count_digits(1) == 1
assert get_count_digits(9) == 1
assert get_count_digits(10) == 2
assert get_count_digits(99) == 2
assert get_count_digits(100) == 3
assert get_count_digits(999) == 3
assert get_count_digits(1000) == 4
assert get_count_digits(9999) == 4
assert get_count_digits(10000) == 5
assert get_count_digits(99999) == 5
assert get_count_digits(100000) == 6
assert get_count_digits(999999) == 6
assert get_count_digits(1000000) == 7
assert get_count_digits(9999999) == 7
assert get_count_digits(10000000) == 8
assert get_count_digits(99999999) == 8
assert get_count_digits(100000000) == 9
assert get_count_digits(999999999) == 9
assert get_count_digits(1000000000) == 10
assert get_count_digits(9999999999) == 10
assert get_count_digits(10000000000) == 11
assert get_count_digits(99999999999) == 11
assert get_count_digits(100000000000) == 12
assert get_count_digits(999999999999) == 12
assert get_count_digits(1000000000000) == 13
assert get_count_digits(9999999999999) == 13
assert get_count_digits(10000000000000) == 14
assert get_count_digits(99999999999999) == 14
assert get_count_digits(100000000000000) == 15
assert get_count_digits(999999999999999) == 15
assert get_count_digits(1000000000000000) == 16
assert get_count_digits(9999999999999999) == 16
assert get_count_digits(10000000000000000) == 17
assert get_count_digits(99999999999999999) == 17
assert get_count_digits(100000000000000000) == 18
assert get_count_digits(999999999999999999) == 18
assert get_count_digits(1000000000000000000) == 19
assert get_count_digits(9999999999999999999) == 19
assert get_count_digits(10000000000000000000) == 20
assert get_count_digits(99999999999999999999) == 20

All example of codes tested with the Python 3.5


d
datanew

Count the number of digits w/o convert integer to a string:

x=123
x=abs(x)
i = 0
while x >= 10**i:
    i +=1
# i is the number of digits

Nice one avoids string conversion completely.
S
Stefan van den Akker

For posterity, no doubt by far the slowest solution to this problem:

def num_digits(num, number_of_calls=1):
    "Returns the number of digits of an integer num."
    if num == 0 or num == -1:
        return 1 if number_of_calls == 1 else 0
    else:
        return 1 + num_digits(num/10, number_of_calls+1)

C
Captain'Flam

Here is a bulky but fast version :

def nbdigit ( x ):
    if x >= 10000000000000000 : # 17 -
        return len( str( x ))
    if x < 100000000 : # 1 - 8
        if x < 10000 : # 1 - 4
            if x < 100             : return (x >= 10)+1 
            else                   : return (x >= 1000)+3
        else: # 5 - 8                                                 
            if x < 1000000         : return (x >= 100000)+5 
            else                   : return (x >= 10000000)+7
    else: # 9 - 16 
        if x < 1000000000000 : # 9 - 12
            if x < 10000000000     : return (x >= 1000000000)+9 
            else                   : return (x >= 100000000000)+11
        else: # 13 - 16
            if x < 100000000000000 : return (x >= 10000000000000)+13 
            else                   : return (x >= 1000000000000000)+15

Only 5 comparisons for not too big numbers. On my computer it is about 30% faster than the math.log10 version and 5% faster than the len( str()) one. Ok... no so attractive if you don't use it furiously.

And here is the set of numbers I used to test/measure my function:

n = [ int( (i+1)**( 17/7. )) for i in xrange( 1000000 )] + [0,10**16-1,10**16,10**16+1]

NB: it does not manage negative numbers, but the adaptation is easy...


R
Robert William Hanks
from math import log10
digits = lambda n: ((n==0) and 1) or int(log10(abs(n)))+1

b
batbrat

Assuming you are asking for the largest number you can store in an integer, the value is implementation dependent. I suggest that you don't think in that way when using python. In any case, quite a large value can be stored in a python 'integer'. Remember, Python uses duck typing!

Edit: I gave my answer before the clarification that the asker wanted the number of digits. For that, I agree with the method suggested by the accepted answer. Nothing more to add!


佚名
def length(i):
  return len(str(i))

F
Frogboxe

It can be done for integers quickly by using:

len(str(abs(1234567890)))

Which gets the length of the string of the absolute value of "1234567890"

abs returns the number WITHOUT any negatives (only the magnitude of the number), str casts/converts it to a string and len returns the string length of that string.

If you want it to work for floats, you can use either of the following:

# Ignore all after decimal place
len(str(abs(0.1234567890)).split(".")[0])

# Ignore just the decimal place
len(str(abs(0.1234567890)))-1

For future reference.


I think it would be simpler to truncate the input number itself (e. g. with a cast to int) than to truncate its decimal string representation: len(str(abs(int(0.1234567890)))) returns 1.
No, that wouldn't work. If you turn 0.17 into an integer you get 0 and the length of that would be different to the length of 0.17
In the first case, by truncating everything from and including the decimal point off the string representation you're effectively calculating the length of the integral part of the number, which is what my suggestion does too. For 0.17 both solutions return 1.
佚名

Format in scientific notation and pluck off the exponent:

int("{:.5e}".format(1000000).split("e")[1]) + 1

I don't know about speed, but it's simple.

Please note the number of significant digits after the decimal (the "5" in the ".5e" can be an issue if it rounds up the decimal part of the scientific notation to another digit. I set it arbitrarily large, but could reflect the length of the largest number you know about.


D
Del_sama
def count_digit(number):
  if number >= 10:
    count = 2
  else:
    count = 1
  while number//10 > 9:
    count += 1
    number = number//10
  return count

While this code may solve the question, including an explanation of how and why this solves the problem would really help to improve the quality of your post, and probably result in more up-votes. Remember that you are answering the question for readers in the future, not just the person asking now. Please edit your answer to add explanations and give an indication of what limitations and assumptions apply.
v
vsminkov
def digits(n)
    count = 0
    if n == 0:
        return 1
    
    if n < 0:
        n *= -1

    while (n >= 10**count):
        count += 1
        n += n%10

    return count

print(digits(25))   # Should print 2
print(digits(144))  # Should print 3
print(digits(1000)) # Should print 4
print(digits(0))    # Should print 1

C
Chaitanya Kesanapalli

Here is another way to compute the number of digit before the decimal of any number

from math import fabs

len(format(fabs(100),".0f"))
Out[102]: 3

len(format(fabs(1e10),".0f"))
Out[165]: 11

len(format(fabs(1235.4576),".0f"))
Out[166]: 4

I did a brief benchmark test, for 10,000 loops

num     len(str(num))     ----  len(format(fabs(num),".0f")) ---- speed-up
2**1e0  2.179400e-07 sec  ----     8.577000e-07 sec          ---- 0.2541
2**1e1  2.396900e-07 sec  ----     8.668800e-07 sec          ---- 0.2765
2**1e2  9.587700e-07 sec  ----     1.330370e-06 sec          ---- 0.7207
2**1e3  2.321700e-06 sec  ----     1.761305e-05 sec          ---- 0.1318

It is slower but a simpler option.

But even this solution does give wrong results from 9999999999999998

len(format(fabs(9999999999999998),".0f"))
Out[146]: 16
len(format(fabs(9999999999999999),".0f"))
Out[145]: 17

P
Paul Roub

If you have to ask an user to give input and then you have to count how many numbers are there then you can follow this:

count_number = input('Please enter a number\t')

print(len(count_number))

Note: Never take an int as user input.


A rather specific case you describe here as it is actually related to the length of a string. Also, I could enter any non-numeric character and you would still believe it is a number.
D
Devvrat Chaubal

My code for the same is as follows;i have used the log10 method:

from math import *

def digit_count(number):

if number>1 and round(log10(number))>=log10(number) and number%10!=0 :
    return round(log10(number))
elif  number>1 and round(log10(number))<log10(number) and number%10!=0:
    return round(log10(number))+1
elif number%10==0 and number!=0:
    return int(log10(number)+1)
elif number==1 or number==0:
    return 1

I had to specify in case of 1 and 0 because log10(1)=0 and log10(0)=ND and hence the condition mentioned isn't satisfied. However, this code works only for whole numbers.


c
cranberrysauce

Top answers are saying mathlog10 faster but I got results that suggest len(str(n)) is faster.

arr = []
for i in range(5000000):
    arr.append(random.randint(0,12345678901234567890))
%%timeit

for n in arr:
    len(str(n))
//2.72 s ± 304 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
%%timeit

for n in arr:
    int(math.log10(n))+1
//3.13 s ± 545 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)

Besides, I haven't added logic to the math way to return accurate results and I can only imagine it slows it even more.

I have no idea how the previous answers proved the maths way is faster though.


K
Khaled
n = 3566002020360505
count = 0
while(n>0):
  count += 1
  n = n //10
print(f"The number of digits in the number are: {count}")

output: The number of digits in the number are: 16


s
san1512

If you are looking for a solution without using inbuilt functions. Only caveat is when you send a = 000.

def number_length(a: int) -> int:
    length = 0
    if a == 0:
        return length + 1
    else:
        while a > 0:
            a = a // 10
            length += 1
        return length
    

if __name__ == '__main__':
    print(number_length(123)
    assert number_length(10) == 2
    assert number_length(0) == 1
    assert number_length(256) == 3
    assert number_length(4444) == 4

The type hint a: int is correct, this doesn't work for float. For example, number_length(1.5) returns 1.
j
jodag

A fast solution that uses a self-correcting implementation of floor(log10(n)) based on "Better way to compute floor of log(n,b) for integers n and b?".

import math

def floor_log(n, b):
    res = math.floor(math.log(n, b))
    c = b**res
    return res + (b*c <= n) - (c > n)

def num_digits(n):
    return 1 if n == 0 else 1 + floor_log(abs(n), 10)

This is quite fast and will work whenever n < 10**(2**52) (which is really really big).


D
Damn Ryder

Here is the simplest approach without need to be convert int into the string:

suppose a number of 15 digits is given eg; n=787878899999999;

n=787878899999999 
n=abs(n) // we are finding absolute value because if the number is negative int to string conversion will produce wrong output

count=0 //we have taken a counter variable which will increment itself till the last digit

while(n):
    n=n//10   /*Here we are removing the last digit of a number...it will remove until 0 digits will left...and we know that while(0) is False*/
    count+=1  /*this counter variable simply increase its value by 1 after deleting a digit from the original number
print(count)   /*when the while loop will become False because n=0, we will simply print the value of counter variable

Input :

n=787878899999999

Output:

15

D
Discriminant

Solution without imports and functions like str()

def numlen(num):
    result = 1
    divider = 10
    while num % divider != num:
        divider *= 10
        result += 1
    return result

a
alpc
coin_digit = str(coin_fark).split(".")[1]
coin_digit_len = len(coin_digit)
print(coin_digit_len)

This answer is for float values (because of the .split(".")) while the question is for integers. And it assumes the input number is already a string. Though the solution to get len(digits) is already answered in the accepted answer.
While this code may answer the question, providing additional context regarding why and/or how this code answers the question improves its long-term value.
g
ghostdog74
>>> a=12345
>>> a.__str__().__len__()
5

Do not directly call special methods. That is written len(str(a)).
@ghostdog74 Just because there's an electrical socket, doesn't mean you have to stick your fingers in it.
so if you are so against it, why don't you tell me what's wrong with using it?
"Magic" __ methods are there for Python internals to call back into, not for your code to call directly. It's the Hollywood Framework pattern: don't call us, we'll call you. But the intent of this framework is that these are magic methods for the standard Python built-ins to make use of, so that your class can customize the behavior of the built-in. If it is a method for your code to call directly, give the method a non-"__" name. This clearly separates those methods that are intended for programmer consumption, vs. those that are provided for callback from Python built-ins.
It'sa bad idea because everyone else in the known universe uses str() and len(). This is being different for the sake of being different, which is inherently a bad thing--not to mention it's just ugly as hell. -1.

关注公众号,不定期副业成功案例分享
Follow WeChat

Success story sharing

Want to stay one step ahead of the latest teleworks?

Subscribe Now