How do I grep for lines containing either of two words, but not both?
7
I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.
So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.
grep
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
7
I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.
So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.
grep
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
(1) You talk about “words” and “patterns”. Which is it? Ordinary words like “quick”, “brown” and “fox”, or regular expressions like[a-z][a-z0-9](,7}(.[a-z0-9]{,3})+? (2) What if one of the words / patterns appears more than once in a line (and the other one doesn’t appear)? Is that equivalent to the word appearing once, or does it count as multiple occurrences?
– G-Man
58 mins ago
add a comment |
7
7
7
I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.
So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.
grep
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.
So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.
grep
grep
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
edited 1 hour ago
Olorin
3,2441417
3,2441417
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
asked 17 hours ago
TrasmosTrasmos
361
361
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
(1) You talk about “words” and “patterns”. Which is it? Ordinary words like “quick”, “brown” and “fox”, or regular expressions like[a-z][a-z0-9](,7}(.[a-z0-9]{,3})+? (2) What if one of the words / patterns appears more than once in a line (and the other one doesn’t appear)? Is that equivalent to the word appearing once, or does it count as multiple occurrences?
– G-Man
58 mins ago
add a comment |
(1) You talk about “words” and “patterns”. Which is it? Ordinary words like “quick”, “brown” and “fox”, or regular expressions like[a-z][a-z0-9](,7}(.[a-z0-9]{,3})+? (2) What if one of the words / patterns appears more than once in a line (and the other one doesn’t appear)? Is that equivalent to the word appearing once, or does it count as multiple occurrences?
– G-Man
58 mins ago
(1) You talk about “words” and “patterns”. Which is it? Ordinary words like “quick”, “brown” and “fox”, or regular expressions like
[a-z][a-z0-9](,7}(.[a-z0-9]{,3})+? (2) What if one of the words / patterns appears more than once in a line (and the other one doesn’t appear)? Is that equivalent to the word appearing once, or does it count as multiple occurrences?– G-Man
58 mins ago
(1) You talk about “words” and “patterns”. Which is it? Ordinary words like “quick”, “brown” and “fox”, or regular expressions like
[a-z][a-z0-9](,7}(.[a-z0-9]{,3})+? (2) What if one of the words / patterns appears more than once in a line (and the other one doesn’t appear)? Is that equivalent to the word appearing once, or does it count as multiple occurrences?– G-Man
58 mins ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
17
A tool other than grep is the way to go.
Using perl, for instance, the command would be:
perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'
perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).
This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.
Or, even shorter, with awk:
awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'
or for versions of awk that don't have xor:
awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
1
Nice - is the Awkxoravailable in GNU Awk only?
– steeldriver
15 hours ago
1
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1irxoris missing.
– Chris
12 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have[w]as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like[A-Za-z0-9_]in some implementations.
– Chris
6 hours ago
2
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e.bwordb.
– wjandrea
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
7
Try with egrep
egrep 'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
1
can also be written asgrep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
5
Also, note from the grep man page:Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated-- prefergrep -E
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
add a comment |
5
With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.
$ cat testfile.txt
abc
def
abc def
abc 123 def
1234
5678
1234 def abc
def abc
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
abc
def
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
2
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
1
The^.*and.*$are unnecessary and harmful to performance.
– Chris
16 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
add a comment |
1
In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as
(A and not B)
or
(B and not A)
Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:
$ cat << EOF > foo
> a b
> a
> b
> c a
> c b
> b a
> b c
> EOF
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
a
c a
b
c b
b c
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
1
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could besort | uniq.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
1
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
0
This can be done purely with grep, uniq, and wc.
# Patterns:
# apple
# pear
# Example line
line="a_apple_apple_pear_a"
# Grep for regex pattern, sort as unique, and count the number of lines
result=$(grep -oE 'apple|pear' <<< $line | sort -u | wc -l)
# Onle one of the words exists if the result is < 2
((result > 0)) &&
if (($result < 2)); then
echo Only one word matched
else
echo Both words matched
fi
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497674%2fhow-do-i-grep-for-lines-containing-either-of-two-words-but-not-both%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
17
A tool other than grep is the way to go.
Using perl, for instance, the command would be:
perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'
perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).
This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.
Or, even shorter, with awk:
awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'
or for versions of awk that don't have xor:
awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
1
Nice - is the Awkxoravailable in GNU Awk only?
– steeldriver
15 hours ago
1
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1irxoris missing.
– Chris
12 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have[w]as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like[A-Za-z0-9_]in some implementations.
– Chris
6 hours ago
2
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e.bwordb.
– wjandrea
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
17
A tool other than grep is the way to go.
Using perl, for instance, the command would be:
perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'
perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).
This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.
Or, even shorter, with awk:
awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'
or for versions of awk that don't have xor:
awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
1
Nice - is the Awkxoravailable in GNU Awk only?
– steeldriver
15 hours ago
1
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1irxoris missing.
– Chris
12 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have[w]as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like[A-Za-z0-9_]in some implementations.
– Chris
6 hours ago
2
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e.bwordb.
– wjandrea
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
17
17
17
A tool other than grep is the way to go.
Using perl, for instance, the command would be:
perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'
perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).
This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.
Or, even shorter, with awk:
awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'
or for versions of awk that don't have xor:
awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
A tool other than grep is the way to go.
Using perl, for instance, the command would be:
perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'
perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).
This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.
Or, even shorter, with awk:
awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'
or for versions of awk that don't have xor:
awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
edited 12 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
answered 17 hours ago
ChrisChris
582314
582314
1
Nice - is the Awkxoravailable in GNU Awk only?
– steeldriver
15 hours ago
1
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1irxoris missing.
– Chris
12 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have[w]as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like[A-Za-z0-9_]in some implementations.
– Chris
6 hours ago
2
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e.bwordb.
– wjandrea
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
Nice - is the Awkxoravailable in GNU Awk only?
– steeldriver
15 hours ago
1
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1irxoris missing.
– Chris
12 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have[w]as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like[A-Za-z0-9_]in some implementations.
– Chris
6 hours ago
2
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e.bwordb.
– wjandrea
6 hours ago
1
1
Nice - is the Awk
xor available in GNU Awk only?– steeldriver
15 hours ago
Nice - is the Awk
xor available in GNU Awk only?– steeldriver
15 hours ago
1
1
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with
/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.– Chris
12 hours ago
@steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with
/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.– Chris
12 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".
– Jim L.
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be
/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.– Chris
6 hours ago
@JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be
/(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.– Chris
6 hours ago
2
2
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (
b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.– wjandrea
6 hours ago
@JimL. You could put word boundaries (
b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.– wjandrea
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
7
Try with egrep
egrep 'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
1
can also be written asgrep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
5
Also, note from the grep man page:Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated-- prefergrep -E
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
add a comment |
7
Try with egrep
egrep 'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
1
can also be written asgrep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
5
Also, note from the grep man page:Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated-- prefergrep -E
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
add a comment |
7
7
7
Try with egrep
egrep 'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
Try with egrep
egrep 'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
edited 14 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
answered 17 hours ago
msp9011msp9011
4,17544064
4,17544064
1
can also be written asgrep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
5
Also, note from the grep man page:Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated-- prefergrep -E
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
can also be written asgrep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
5
Also, note from the grep man page:Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated-- prefergrep -E
– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
1
1
can also be written as
grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
can also be written as
grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
5
5
Also, note from the grep man page:
Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
Also, note from the grep man page:
Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E– glenn jackman
15 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
That isn't in my OS @glennjackman
– Grump
13 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils
– glenn jackman
12 hours ago
add a comment |
5
With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.
$ cat testfile.txt
abc
def
abc def
abc 123 def
1234
5678
1234 def abc
def abc
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
abc
def
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
2
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
1
The^.*and.*$are unnecessary and harmful to performance.
– Chris
16 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
add a comment |
5
With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.
$ cat testfile.txt
abc
def
abc def
abc 123 def
1234
5678
1234 def abc
def abc
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
abc
def
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
2
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
1
The^.*and.*$are unnecessary and harmful to performance.
– Chris
16 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
add a comment |
5
5
5
With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.
$ cat testfile.txt
abc
def
abc def
abc 123 def
1234
5678
1234 def abc
def abc
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
abc
def
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.
$ cat testfile.txt
abc
def
abc def
abc 123 def
1234
5678
1234 def abc
def abc
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
abc
def
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
edited 15 hours ago
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
answered 17 hours ago
HaxielHaxiel
1,9451710
1,9451710
2
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
1
The^.*and.*$are unnecessary and harmful to performance.
– Chris
16 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
add a comment |
2
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
1
The^.*and.*$are unnecessary and harmful to performance.
– Chris
16 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
2
2
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
@msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!
– Haxiel
17 hours ago
1
1
The
^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.– Chris
16 hours ago
The
^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.– Chris
16 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
@Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.
– Haxiel
15 hours ago
add a comment |
1
In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as
(A and not B)
or
(B and not A)
Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:
$ cat << EOF > foo
> a b
> a
> b
> c a
> c b
> b a
> b c
> EOF
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
a
c a
b
c b
b c
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
1
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could besort | uniq.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
1
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as
(A and not B)
or
(B and not A)
Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:
$ cat << EOF > foo
> a b
> a
> b
> c a
> c b
> b a
> b c
> EOF
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
a
c a
b
c b
b c
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
1
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could besort | uniq.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
1
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
1
1
In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as
(A and not B)
or
(B and not A)
Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:
$ cat << EOF > foo
> a b
> a
> b
> c a
> c b
> b a
> b c
> EOF
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
a
c a
b
c b
b c
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as
(A and not B)
or
(B and not A)
Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:
$ cat << EOF > foo
> a b
> a
> b
> c a
> c b
> b a
> b c
> EOF
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
a
c a
b
c b
b c
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
edited 5 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
answered 8 hours ago
Jim L.Jim L.
1112
1112
1
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could besort | uniq.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
1
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could besort | uniq.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
1
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
1
1
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be
sort | uniq.– Jim L.
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be
sort | uniq.– Jim L.
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.
– Sparhawk
5 hours ago
1
1
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
@Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.
– Jim L.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
0
This can be done purely with grep, uniq, and wc.
# Patterns:
# apple
# pear
# Example line
line="a_apple_apple_pear_a"
# Grep for regex pattern, sort as unique, and count the number of lines
result=$(grep -oE 'apple|pear' <<< $line | sort -u | wc -l)
# Onle one of the words exists if the result is < 2
((result > 0)) &&
if (($result < 2)); then
echo Only one word matched
else
echo Both words matched
fi
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
add a comment |
0
This can be done purely with grep, uniq, and wc.
# Patterns:
# apple
# pear
# Example line
line="a_apple_apple_pear_a"
# Grep for regex pattern, sort as unique, and count the number of lines
result=$(grep -oE 'apple|pear' <<< $line | sort -u | wc -l)
# Onle one of the words exists if the result is < 2
((result > 0)) &&
if (($result < 2)); then
echo Only one word matched
else
echo Both words matched
fi
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
add a comment |
0
0
0
This can be done purely with grep, uniq, and wc.
# Patterns:
# apple
# pear
# Example line
line="a_apple_apple_pear_a"
# Grep for regex pattern, sort as unique, and count the number of lines
result=$(grep -oE 'apple|pear' <<< $line | sort -u | wc -l)
# Onle one of the words exists if the result is < 2
((result > 0)) &&
if (($result < 2)); then
echo Only one word matched
else
echo Both words matched
fi
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
This can be done purely with grep, uniq, and wc.
# Patterns:
# apple
# pear
# Example line
line="a_apple_apple_pear_a"
# Grep for regex pattern, sort as unique, and count the number of lines
result=$(grep -oE 'apple|pear' <<< $line | sort -u | wc -l)
# Onle one of the words exists if the result is < 2
((result > 0)) &&
if (($result < 2)); then
echo Only one word matched
else
echo Both words matched
fi
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
answered 46 mins ago
ZhroZhro
342413
342413
add a comment |
add a comment |
Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
draft saved
draft discarded
Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497674%2fhow-do-i-grep-for-lines-containing-either-of-two-words-but-not-both%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
(1) You talk about “words” and “patterns”. Which is it? Ordinary words like “quick”, “brown” and “fox”, or regular expressions like
[a-z][a-z0-9](,7}(.[a-z0-9]{,3})+? (2) What if one of the words / patterns appears more than once in a line (and the other one doesn’t appear)? Is that equivalent to the word appearing once, or does it count as multiple occurrences?– G-Man
58 mins ago