find(1) and "-not -path <pattern>"

m4rtin · 03-12-2012, 06:49 AM

I would like to use find(1) "-path" or "-ipath" option in one of my shell scripts. As I understand, if I specify for example '-not -path "*empt*"', then all those directories, which have "*empt*" string in their path, are not searched:

Code:

[martin@martin ~]$ ls doc
[martin@martin ~]$ find ./a ./an -type f
./an/empty/one/testfile
./an/file
[martin@martin ~]$ find ./a ./an -type f -not -path "*empt*" -exec cp {} doc/ \;
[martin@martin ~]$ ls doc
file
[martint@martin ~]$

In other words "-path" or "-not -path" is like grepping the search results before handing those over to action(-print by default). Am I correct?

grail · 03-12-2012, 08:25 AM

You might want to check out the -prune option, from the man page:

Code:

-path pattern
              File name matches shell pattern pattern.  The metacharacters do not treat `/' or `.' specially; so, for example,
                        find . -path "./sr*sc"
              will print an entry for a directory called `./src/misc' (if one exists).  To ignore a whole directory tree, use -prune rather than checking every file in the tree.  For example,  to
              skip the directory `src/emacs' and all files and directories under it, and print the names of the other files found, do something like this:
                        find . -path ./src/emacs -prune -o -print
              Note  that  the pattern match test applies to the whole file name, starting from one of the start points named on the command line.  It would only make sense to use an absolute path
              name here if the relevant start point is also an absolute path.  This means that this command will never match anything:
                        find bar -path /foo/bar/myfile -print
              The predicate -path is also supported by HP-UX find and will be in a forthcoming version of the POSIX standard.

m4rtin · 03-12-2012, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grail

You might want to check out the -prune option, from the man page:

Code:

-path pattern
              File name matches shell pattern pattern.  The metacharacters do not treat `/' or `.' specially; so, for example,
                        find . -path "./sr*sc"
              will print an entry for a directory called `./src/misc' (if one exists).  To ignore a whole directory tree, use -prune rather than checking every file in the tree.  For example,  to
              skip the directory `src/emacs' and all files and directories under it, and print the names of the other files found, do something like this:
                        find . -path ./src/emacs -prune -o -print
              Note  that  the pattern match test applies to the whole file name, starting from one of the start points named on the command line.  It would only make sense to use an absolute path
              name here if the relevant start point is also an absolute path.  This means that this command will never match anything:
                        find bar -path /foo/bar/myfile -print
              The predicate -path is also supported by HP-UX find and will be in a forthcoming version of the POSIX standard.

ok, so all the directories in the directory list(./a and ./an in this case) are still searched through, but before handing results to action(-print by default) the results are "grepped" using the string specified with the "-path" or "-not -path"? If yes, one might use "-not -path <pattern>" as well in order to avoid handing results over to action(for example -print or -exec)? I mean it will take a lot longer than using "-prune" because all the directories are still searched through, but the end results should be the same?

grail · 03-12-2012, 12:44 PM

Well I guess the proof is in the pudding ... that is to say, if you run both options of your find command and return the same data then I guess it is up to you which to use, however,
if one is not returning the desired results then there is only one choice in that occasion.

m4rtin · 03-12-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grail

Well I guess the proof is in the pudding ... that is to say, if you run both options of your find command and return the same data then I guess it is up to you which to use, however,
if one is not returning the desired results then there is only one choice in that occasion.

ok..but in which case one should use -path? And in which case one should use -prune?

grail · 03-13-2012, 12:20 AM

I think if you look at the man page for find you will see that -prune is used with other options to perform its task, ie:

Code:

find -prune

Alone the above will not be of any great help (that I am aware of)