How to merge all (text) files in a directory into one?












81















I've got 14 files all being parts of one text. I'd like to merge them into one. How to do that?






files text-processing







share|improve this question



























    81















    I've got 14 files all being parts of one text. I'd like to merge them into one. How to do that?






    files text-processing







    share|improve this question

























      81












      81








      81


      24






      I've got 14 files all being parts of one text. I'd like to merge them into one. How to do that?






      files text-processing







      share|improve this question














      I've got 14 files all being parts of one text. I'd like to merge them into one. How to do that?






      files text-processing




      files text-processing






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 4 '10 at 21:15









      IvanIvan

      5,9142070101




      5,9142070101






















          7 Answers
          7






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          154














          This is technically what cat ("concatenate") is supposed to do, even though most people just use it for outputting files to stdout. If you give it multiple filenames it will output them all sequentially, and then you can redirect that into a new file; in the case of all files just use * (or /path/to/directory/* if you're not in the directory already) and your shell will expand it to all the filenames



          $ cat * > merged-file





          share|improve this answer



















          • 14





            Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

            – Warren Young
            Nov 4 '10 at 21:43






          • 2





            @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

            – Gilles
            Nov 4 '10 at 23:04






          • 2





            @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

            – Ivan
            Nov 4 '10 at 23:16








          • 2





            Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

            – Nupur
            Aug 5 '15 at 13:46






          • 1





            @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

            – Michael Mrozek♦
            Sep 20 '18 at 3:45



















          23














          If your files aren't in the same directory, you can use the find command before the concatenation:



          find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -print0 | xargs -0 -I file cat file > merged.file


          Very useful when your files are already ordered and you want to merge them to analyze them.




          More portably:



          find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -exec cat {} + > merged.file


          This may or may not preserve file order.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

            – Мати Тернер
            May 15 '14 at 23:17






          • 2





            You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

            – Peteris
            Aug 16 '16 at 14:15











          • The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

            – 3nrique0
            Sep 15 '16 at 12:08











          • I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

            – RJHunter
            Nov 18 '16 at 5:47






          • 2





            See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

            – Wildcard
            Nov 18 '16 at 6:57



















          10














          The command



          $ cat * > merged-file


          actually has the undesired side-effect of including 'merged-file' in the concatenation, creating a run-away file. To get round this, either write the merged file to a different directory;



          $ cat * > ../merged-file


          or use a pattern match that will ignore the merged file;



          $ cat *.txt > merged-file





          share|improve this answer



















          • 13





            cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

            – Kevin
            Feb 21 '12 at 22:48











          • cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

            – bfontaine
            Sep 11 '17 at 18:48



















          8














          Like the other ones from here say... You can use cat



          Lets say you have:



          ~/file01
          
~/file02
          
~/file03
          
~/file04
          
~/fileA
          
~/fileB
          
~/fileC
          
~/fileD


          And you want only file01 to file03 and fileA to fileC:



          cat ~/file01 ~/file02 ~/file03 ~/fileA ~/fileB ~/fileC > merged-file


          Or, using brace expansion:



          cat ~/file0{1..3} ~/file{A..C} > merged-file


          Or, using fancier brace expansion:



          cat ~/file{0{1..3},{A..C}} > merged-file


          Or you can use for loop:



          for i in file0{1..3} file{A..C}; do cat ~/"$i"; done > merged-file





          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

            – Kusalananda
            Aug 3 '16 at 10:13



















          1














          You can specify the pattern of a file then merge all of them as follows:



          cat *pattern* >> mergedfile





          share|improve this answer

































            0














            Another option is sed:



            sed r 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


            Or...



            sed h 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


            Or...



            sed -n p 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt # -n is mandatory here


            Or without redirection ...



             sed wmerge.txt 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt


            Note that last line write also merge.txt (not wmerge.txt!). You can use w"merge.txt" to avoid confusion with the file name, and -n for silent output.



            Of course, you can also shorten the file list with wildcards. For instance, in case of numbered files as in the above examples, you can specify the range with braces in this way:



            sed -n w"merge.txt" {1..3}.txt





            share|improve this answer































              0














              Since they are text files, you can try this.



              cat *.txt > final.txt





              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "106"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: false,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: null,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });














                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3770%2fhow-to-merge-all-text-files-in-a-directory-into-one%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                7 Answers
                7






                active

                oldest

                votes








                7 Answers
                7






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                154














                This is technically what cat ("concatenate") is supposed to do, even though most people just use it for outputting files to stdout. If you give it multiple filenames it will output them all sequentially, and then you can redirect that into a new file; in the case of all files just use * (or /path/to/directory/* if you're not in the directory already) and your shell will expand it to all the filenames



                $ cat * > merged-file





                share|improve this answer



















                • 14





                  Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

                  – Warren Young
                  Nov 4 '10 at 21:43






                • 2





                  @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

                  – Gilles
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:04






                • 2





                  @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

                  – Ivan
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:16








                • 2





                  Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

                  – Nupur
                  Aug 5 '15 at 13:46






                • 1





                  @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

                  – Michael Mrozek♦
                  Sep 20 '18 at 3:45
















                154














                This is technically what cat ("concatenate") is supposed to do, even though most people just use it for outputting files to stdout. If you give it multiple filenames it will output them all sequentially, and then you can redirect that into a new file; in the case of all files just use * (or /path/to/directory/* if you're not in the directory already) and your shell will expand it to all the filenames



                $ cat * > merged-file





                share|improve this answer



















                • 14





                  Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

                  – Warren Young
                  Nov 4 '10 at 21:43






                • 2





                  @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

                  – Gilles
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:04






                • 2





                  @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

                  – Ivan
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:16








                • 2





                  Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

                  – Nupur
                  Aug 5 '15 at 13:46






                • 1





                  @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

                  – Michael Mrozek♦
                  Sep 20 '18 at 3:45














                154












                154








                154







                This is technically what cat ("concatenate") is supposed to do, even though most people just use it for outputting files to stdout. If you give it multiple filenames it will output them all sequentially, and then you can redirect that into a new file; in the case of all files just use * (or /path/to/directory/* if you're not in the directory already) and your shell will expand it to all the filenames



                $ cat * > merged-file





                share|improve this answer













                This is technically what cat ("concatenate") is supposed to do, even though most people just use it for outputting files to stdout. If you give it multiple filenames it will output them all sequentially, and then you can redirect that into a new file; in the case of all files just use * (or /path/to/directory/* if you're not in the directory already) and your shell will expand it to all the filenames



                $ cat * > merged-file






                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Nov 4 '10 at 21:21









                Michael Mrozek♦Michael Mrozek

                62k29193213




                62k29193213








                • 14





                  Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

                  – Warren Young
                  Nov 4 '10 at 21:43






                • 2





                  @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

                  – Gilles
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:04






                • 2





                  @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

                  – Ivan
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:16








                • 2





                  Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

                  – Nupur
                  Aug 5 '15 at 13:46






                • 1





                  @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

                  – Michael Mrozek♦
                  Sep 20 '18 at 3:45














                • 14





                  Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

                  – Warren Young
                  Nov 4 '10 at 21:43






                • 2





                  @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

                  – Gilles
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:04






                • 2





                  @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

                  – Ivan
                  Nov 4 '10 at 23:16








                • 2





                  Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

                  – Nupur
                  Aug 5 '15 at 13:46






                • 1





                  @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

                  – Michael Mrozek♦
                  Sep 20 '18 at 3:45








                14




                14





                Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

                – Warren Young
                Nov 4 '10 at 21:43





                Beware that your quoted command will probably only do what the poster wants if they're numbered in such a way that the shell expands * in "natural" order. If you have "file1.txt...file9.txt...file14.txt" it won't work because file1?.txt will sort between file1.txt and file2.txt. You'd have to rename them to "file01.txt...file09.txt...file14.txt". Say echo * if you're not sure.

                – Warren Young
                Nov 4 '10 at 21:43




                2




                2





                @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

                – Gilles
                Nov 4 '10 at 23:04





                @Warren: good point (or you can use zsh and set its numeric_glob_sort option).

                – Gilles
                Nov 4 '10 at 23:04




                2




                2





                @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

                – Ivan
                Nov 4 '10 at 23:16







                @warren-young a correct, useful warning comment. But in my actual case the order makes no difference (because files contain just simple SQL statements inserting data records which have no dependencies).

                – Ivan
                Nov 4 '10 at 23:16






                2




                2





                Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

                – Nupur
                Aug 5 '15 at 13:46





                Beware, if the count of files exceeds a certain limit, you can run in errors like - /bin/cat: Argument list too long

                – Nupur
                Aug 5 '15 at 13:46




                1




                1





                @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

                – Michael Mrozek♦
                Sep 20 '18 at 3:45





                @ARA1307 Only if the file already exists; otherwise the glob will be expanded before the shell opens the file to write to it. Good point in that situation though

                – Michael Mrozek♦
                Sep 20 '18 at 3:45













                23














                If your files aren't in the same directory, you can use the find command before the concatenation:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -print0 | xargs -0 -I file cat file > merged.file


                Very useful when your files are already ordered and you want to merge them to analyze them.




                More portably:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -exec cat {} + > merged.file


                This may or may not preserve file order.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 1





                  This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

                  – Мати Тернер
                  May 15 '14 at 23:17






                • 2





                  You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

                  – Peteris
                  Aug 16 '16 at 14:15











                • The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

                  – 3nrique0
                  Sep 15 '16 at 12:08











                • I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

                  – RJHunter
                  Nov 18 '16 at 5:47






                • 2





                  See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

                  – Wildcard
                  Nov 18 '16 at 6:57
















                23














                If your files aren't in the same directory, you can use the find command before the concatenation:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -print0 | xargs -0 -I file cat file > merged.file


                Very useful when your files are already ordered and you want to merge them to analyze them.




                More portably:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -exec cat {} + > merged.file


                This may or may not preserve file order.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 1





                  This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

                  – Мати Тернер
                  May 15 '14 at 23:17






                • 2





                  You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

                  – Peteris
                  Aug 16 '16 at 14:15











                • The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

                  – 3nrique0
                  Sep 15 '16 at 12:08











                • I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

                  – RJHunter
                  Nov 18 '16 at 5:47






                • 2





                  See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

                  – Wildcard
                  Nov 18 '16 at 6:57














                23












                23








                23







                If your files aren't in the same directory, you can use the find command before the concatenation:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -print0 | xargs -0 -I file cat file > merged.file


                Very useful when your files are already ordered and you want to merge them to analyze them.




                More portably:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -exec cat {} + > merged.file


                This may or may not preserve file order.






                share|improve this answer















                If your files aren't in the same directory, you can use the find command before the concatenation:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -print0 | xargs -0 -I file cat file > merged.file


                Very useful when your files are already ordered and you want to merge them to analyze them.




                More portably:



                find /path/to/directory/ -name *.csv -exec cat {} + > merged.file


                This may or may not preserve file order.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Nov 18 '16 at 6:59









                Wildcard

                23.1k1066170




                23.1k1066170










                answered Jul 17 '13 at 15:03









                3nrique03nrique0

                36139




                36139








                • 1





                  This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

                  – Мати Тернер
                  May 15 '14 at 23:17






                • 2





                  You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

                  – Peteris
                  Aug 16 '16 at 14:15











                • The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

                  – 3nrique0
                  Sep 15 '16 at 12:08











                • I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

                  – RJHunter
                  Nov 18 '16 at 5:47






                • 2





                  See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

                  – Wildcard
                  Nov 18 '16 at 6:57














                • 1





                  This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

                  – Мати Тернер
                  May 15 '14 at 23:17






                • 2





                  You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

                  – Peteris
                  Aug 16 '16 at 14:15











                • The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

                  – 3nrique0
                  Sep 15 '16 at 12:08











                • I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

                  – RJHunter
                  Nov 18 '16 at 5:47






                • 2





                  See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

                  – Wildcard
                  Nov 18 '16 at 6:57








                1




                1





                This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

                – Мати Тернер
                May 15 '14 at 23:17





                This is the way to go if you have a lot of files. You avoid an "argument list too long" error.

                – Мати Тернер
                May 15 '14 at 23:17




                2




                2





                You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

                – Peteris
                Aug 16 '16 at 14:15





                You need -name "*.csv" instead of -name *.csv - without the quotes it fails.

                – Peteris
                Aug 16 '16 at 14:15













                The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

                – 3nrique0
                Sep 15 '16 at 12:08





                The need for quotes depends on the version of the find command, specially in find and awk it's a problem when you are on a mac, the versions of both programs is a bit old. So far on ubuntu, fedora, debian and CentOS it worked smoothly without the quotes

                – 3nrique0
                Sep 15 '16 at 12:08













                I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

                – RJHunter
                Nov 18 '16 at 5:47





                I would expect the unquoted version to work when there are no files in the current directory matching the pattern "*.csv", since the shell would then pass the literal * to find.

                – RJHunter
                Nov 18 '16 at 5:47




                2




                2





                See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

                – Wildcard
                Nov 18 '16 at 6:57





                See Why is looping over find's output bad practice?

                – Wildcard
                Nov 18 '16 at 6:57











                10














                The command



                $ cat * > merged-file


                actually has the undesired side-effect of including 'merged-file' in the concatenation, creating a run-away file. To get round this, either write the merged file to a different directory;



                $ cat * > ../merged-file


                or use a pattern match that will ignore the merged file;



                $ cat *.txt > merged-file





                share|improve this answer



















                • 13





                  cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

                  – Kevin
                  Feb 21 '12 at 22:48











                • cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

                  – bfontaine
                  Sep 11 '17 at 18:48
















                10














                The command



                $ cat * > merged-file


                actually has the undesired side-effect of including 'merged-file' in the concatenation, creating a run-away file. To get round this, either write the merged file to a different directory;



                $ cat * > ../merged-file


                or use a pattern match that will ignore the merged file;



                $ cat *.txt > merged-file





                share|improve this answer



















                • 13





                  cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

                  – Kevin
                  Feb 21 '12 at 22:48











                • cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

                  – bfontaine
                  Sep 11 '17 at 18:48














                10












                10








                10







                The command



                $ cat * > merged-file


                actually has the undesired side-effect of including 'merged-file' in the concatenation, creating a run-away file. To get round this, either write the merged file to a different directory;



                $ cat * > ../merged-file


                or use a pattern match that will ignore the merged file;



                $ cat *.txt > merged-file





                share|improve this answer













                The command



                $ cat * > merged-file


                actually has the undesired side-effect of including 'merged-file' in the concatenation, creating a run-away file. To get round this, either write the merged file to a different directory;



                $ cat * > ../merged-file


                or use a pattern match that will ignore the merged file;



                $ cat *.txt > merged-file






                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Feb 21 '12 at 12:24









                Christopher JonesChristopher Jones

                11712




                11712








                • 13





                  cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

                  – Kevin
                  Feb 21 '12 at 22:48











                • cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

                  – bfontaine
                  Sep 11 '17 at 18:48














                • 13





                  cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

                  – Kevin
                  Feb 21 '12 at 22:48











                • cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

                  – bfontaine
                  Sep 11 '17 at 18:48








                13




                13





                cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

                – Kevin
                Feb 21 '12 at 22:48





                cat * > merged-file works fine. Globs are processed before the file is created. If merged-file already exists, cat (mine at least) will detect that it's the output file and refuse to read it. IF the file already exists AND you have the redirect later in the pipeline, then it obviously can't do that, so then and only then do you get the runaway file.

                – Kevin
                Feb 21 '12 at 22:48













                cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

                – bfontaine
                Sep 11 '17 at 18:48





                cat has no way to detect if the file is the output one. The redirection happens in the shell; cat only prints on stdout.

                – bfontaine
                Sep 11 '17 at 18:48











                8














                Like the other ones from here say... You can use cat



                Lets say you have:



                ~/file01
                
~/file02
                
~/file03
                
~/file04
                
~/fileA
                
~/fileB
                
~/fileC
                
~/fileD


                And you want only file01 to file03 and fileA to fileC:



                cat ~/file01 ~/file02 ~/file03 ~/fileA ~/fileB ~/fileC > merged-file


                Or, using brace expansion:



                cat ~/file0{1..3} ~/file{A..C} > merged-file


                Or, using fancier brace expansion:



                cat ~/file{0{1..3},{A..C}} > merged-file


                Or you can use for loop:



                for i in file0{1..3} file{A..C}; do cat ~/"$i"; done > merged-file





                share|improve this answer





















                • 1





                  Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

                  – Kusalananda
                  Aug 3 '16 at 10:13
















                8














                Like the other ones from here say... You can use cat



                Lets say you have:



                ~/file01
                
~/file02
                
~/file03
                
~/file04
                
~/fileA
                
~/fileB
                
~/fileC
                
~/fileD


                And you want only file01 to file03 and fileA to fileC:



                cat ~/file01 ~/file02 ~/file03 ~/fileA ~/fileB ~/fileC > merged-file


                Or, using brace expansion:



                cat ~/file0{1..3} ~/file{A..C} > merged-file


                Or, using fancier brace expansion:



                cat ~/file{0{1..3},{A..C}} > merged-file


                Or you can use for loop:



                for i in file0{1..3} file{A..C}; do cat ~/"$i"; done > merged-file





                share|improve this answer





















                • 1





                  Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

                  – Kusalananda
                  Aug 3 '16 at 10:13














                8












                8








                8







                Like the other ones from here say... You can use cat



                Lets say you have:



                ~/file01
                
~/file02
                
~/file03
                
~/file04
                
~/fileA
                
~/fileB
                
~/fileC
                
~/fileD


                And you want only file01 to file03 and fileA to fileC:



                cat ~/file01 ~/file02 ~/file03 ~/fileA ~/fileB ~/fileC > merged-file


                Or, using brace expansion:



                cat ~/file0{1..3} ~/file{A..C} > merged-file


                Or, using fancier brace expansion:



                cat ~/file{0{1..3},{A..C}} > merged-file


                Or you can use for loop:



                for i in file0{1..3} file{A..C}; do cat ~/"$i"; done > merged-file





                share|improve this answer















                Like the other ones from here say... You can use cat



                Lets say you have:



                ~/file01
                
~/file02
                
~/file03
                
~/file04
                
~/fileA
                
~/fileB
                
~/fileC
                
~/fileD


                And you want only file01 to file03 and fileA to fileC:



                cat ~/file01 ~/file02 ~/file03 ~/fileA ~/fileB ~/fileC > merged-file


                Or, using brace expansion:



                cat ~/file0{1..3} ~/file{A..C} > merged-file


                Or, using fancier brace expansion:



                cat ~/file{0{1..3},{A..C}} > merged-file


                Or you can use for loop:



                for i in file0{1..3} file{A..C}; do cat ~/"$i"; done > merged-file






                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Dec 16 '16 at 14:59

























                answered Aug 3 '16 at 10:09









                Florin IditaFlorin Idita

                9113




                9113








                • 1





                  Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

                  – Kusalananda
                  Aug 3 '16 at 10:13














                • 1





                  Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

                  – Kusalananda
                  Aug 3 '16 at 10:13








                1




                1





                Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

                – Kusalananda
                Aug 3 '16 at 10:13





                Note that the string [01-03] won't work as a globbing pattern.

                – Kusalananda
                Aug 3 '16 at 10:13











                1














                You can specify the pattern of a file then merge all of them as follows:



                cat *pattern* >> mergedfile





                share|improve this answer






























                  1














                  You can specify the pattern of a file then merge all of them as follows:



                  cat *pattern* >> mergedfile





                  share|improve this answer




























                    1












                    1








                    1







                    You can specify the pattern of a file then merge all of them as follows:



                    cat *pattern* >> mergedfile





                    share|improve this answer















                    You can specify the pattern of a file then merge all of them as follows:



                    cat *pattern* >> mergedfile






                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited Aug 3 '16 at 10:10









                    Kevdog777

                    2,116123460




                    2,116123460










                    answered Aug 3 '16 at 9:42









                    user182845user182845

                    111




                    111























                        0














                        Another option is sed:



                        sed r 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                        Or...



                        sed h 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                        Or...



                        sed -n p 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt # -n is mandatory here


                        Or without redirection ...



                         sed wmerge.txt 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt


                        Note that last line write also merge.txt (not wmerge.txt!). You can use w"merge.txt" to avoid confusion with the file name, and -n for silent output.



                        Of course, you can also shorten the file list with wildcards. For instance, in case of numbered files as in the above examples, you can specify the range with braces in this way:



                        sed -n w"merge.txt" {1..3}.txt





                        share|improve this answer




























                          0














                          Another option is sed:



                          sed r 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                          Or...



                          sed h 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                          Or...



                          sed -n p 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt # -n is mandatory here


                          Or without redirection ...



                           sed wmerge.txt 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt


                          Note that last line write also merge.txt (not wmerge.txt!). You can use w"merge.txt" to avoid confusion with the file name, and -n for silent output.



                          Of course, you can also shorten the file list with wildcards. For instance, in case of numbered files as in the above examples, you can specify the range with braces in this way:



                          sed -n w"merge.txt" {1..3}.txt





                          share|improve this answer


























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            Another option is sed:



                            sed r 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                            Or...



                            sed h 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                            Or...



                            sed -n p 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt # -n is mandatory here


                            Or without redirection ...



                             sed wmerge.txt 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt


                            Note that last line write also merge.txt (not wmerge.txt!). You can use w"merge.txt" to avoid confusion with the file name, and -n for silent output.



                            Of course, you can also shorten the file list with wildcards. For instance, in case of numbered files as in the above examples, you can specify the range with braces in this way:



                            sed -n w"merge.txt" {1..3}.txt





                            share|improve this answer













                            Another option is sed:



                            sed r 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                            Or...



                            sed h 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt


                            Or...



                            sed -n p 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt > merge.txt # -n is mandatory here


                            Or without redirection ...



                             sed wmerge.txt 1.txt 2.txt 3.txt


                            Note that last line write also merge.txt (not wmerge.txt!). You can use w"merge.txt" to avoid confusion with the file name, and -n for silent output.



                            Of course, you can also shorten the file list with wildcards. For instance, in case of numbered files as in the above examples, you can specify the range with braces in this way:



                            sed -n w"merge.txt" {1..3}.txt






                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered May 31 '17 at 18:22









                            HariniHarini

                            1012




                            1012























                                0














                                Since they are text files, you can try this.



                                cat *.txt > final.txt





                                share|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                                  0














                                  Since they are text files, you can try this.



                                  cat *.txt > final.txt





                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0







                                    Since they are text files, you can try this.



                                    cat *.txt > final.txt





                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                    Since they are text files, you can try this.



                                    cat *.txt > final.txt






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer






                                    New contributor




                                    rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                    answered 14 mins ago









                                    rv0x00rv0x00

                                    11




                                    11




                                    New contributor




                                    rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                    New contributor





                                    rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                    rv0x00 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded




















































                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid …



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3770%2fhow-to-merge-all-text-files-in-a-directory-into-one%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        -

                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        濃尾地震

                                        Image
                                        濃尾地震 『岐阜市街大地震之図』 歌川国利画 本震 発生日 1891年（明治24年）10月28日 発生時刻 6時38分50秒（JST） 震央 日本 岐阜県本巣郡西根尾村（現・本巣市） 北緯35度35分 東経136度20分（ 地図 ） 規模    マグニチュード（M）8.0 最大震度    震度7： 注1 福井県今立郡鯖江町、愛知県葉栗郡大田島村、東春日井郡勝川村 地震の種類 直下型地震 被害 死傷者数 死者7,273人、負傷者17,175人 注1：当時の震度階級では「激烈」 プロジェクト:地球科学 プロジェクト:災害 テンプレートを表示 濃尾地震 （のうびじしん）は、1891年（明治24年）10月28日に濃尾地方で発生した、日本史上最大の内陸地殻内地震。「 美濃・尾張地震 （みの・おわりじしん）」とも呼ばれている。辛卯の年に発生したことから 辛卯震災 と呼んでいる報告書もある。 目次 1 概要 1.1 震源断層 2 被害 3 各地の震度 4 前兆現象 5 報道 6 学術的な意義 7 地震防災 8 脚注 9 関連項目 10 外部リンク 概要 濃尾地震発生当時の根尾谷断層 濃尾地震を引き起こした根尾谷断層 写真中央を斜めに走る段差が根尾谷断層 濃尾地震は、1891年10月28日6時38分50秒に発生した。震源は、岐阜県本巣郡西根尾村（現・本巣市）、北緯35度35分、東経136度20分付近。河角廣 (1951) は岐阜市付近（北緯35.6度、東経136.6度）に震央を仮定し規模 M K = 7.0 を与え [1] 、マグニチュードは M = 8.4 に換算されているが、明治・大正期の地震については0.5程度大きく見積もられているとされる [2] 。また、震央距離と震度との関係など当時のデータから後にM8.0 [3] とも推定される。アメリカ地質調査所 (USGS) でも8.0としている [4] 。「根尾谷断層帯」が活動した典型的な内陸地殻内地震（いわゆる直下型地震）であり、これは記録が残っている日本の内陸
                                        Read more

                                        How to rewrite equation of hyperbola in standard form

                                        Image
                                        2 $begingroup$ I was wondering about this question: $$ 9 x ^ 2 -4y^2-72x=0 $$ What is the step-by-step process of writing such an equation which, in this case, has the graph of a hyperbola in standard form? Please excuse me for my messy equation. As I am relatively new to Mathematics Stack Exchange, I do not know how to insert superscripts. Thank you ahead of time! calculus conic-sections share | cite | improve this question edited 2 hours ago Key Flex 8,637 6 12 33 asked 2 hours ago
                                        Read more

                                        No ethernet ip address in my vocore2

                                        Image
                                        0 I just flashed my vocore2u with openwrt 18.06.1, and plug it with an ethernet cable to access network while setting up wireless access-point for my phone. The AP is working and connected to the network, but the ip in my phone is in the subnet of another router. And there's no ip assigned to my vocore2 so I cannot ssh into it. After connecting to vocore2 with serial terminal, ping 8.8.8.8 is also failed. How can I make my vocore2 gain ip from the router and setting up the network well? root@OpenWrt:/etc/config# ifconfig apcli0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr BA:D8:12:07:01:71 inet6 addr: fe80::b8d8:12ff:fe07:171/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 erro
                                        Read more