PHP Get File Extension

Over time, I’ve seen a wide range of scripts which for one reason or another have had the need to grab the extension from a file name or path (E.g. “gif” from “mypic.gif”). Oftentimes the solution tends to fall back on what the task appears to need: string manipulation. Though, as you’ll see, this may not be the best approach to take.

To make things a little clearer for people who can visualise code more easily than paragraphs of text, here are a few examples of what I’ve seen used in the past. The samples are mostly compacted onto a single line but if you’re not comfortable with multiple things happening in one line, feel free to expand them into multiple steps. In all cases, $ext ends up being “gif” .

$filename = 'mypic.gif';
 
// 1. The "explode/end" approach
$ext = end(explode('.', $filename));
 
// 2. The "strrchr" approach
$ext = substr(strrchr($filename, '.'), 1);
 
// 3. The "strrpos" approach
$ext = substr($filename, strrpos($filename, '.') + 1);
 
// 4. The "preg_replace" approach
$ext = preg_replace('/^.*\.([^.]+)$/D', '$1', $filename);
 
// 5. The "never use this" approach
//   From: http://php.about.com/od/finishedphp1/qt/file_ext_PHP.htm
$exts = split("[/\\.]", $filename);
$n = count($exts)-1;
$ext = $exts[$n];

Forgetting approach number 5 (the “never use this” approach!), they seem fairly reasonable ways of parsing the $filename string and grabbing the extension. So much so that those approaches can be found dotted around the interweb when people ask the question “How to get the file extension in PHP?

Speed, baby, speed!

Because these are commonly used snippets of code, I decided to pitch them against each other and find out which was the most efficient–by that I simply mean the fastest processing–method just to satisfy my curiosity. The exact details of how they were tested I don’t plan to go into in this post, but here is what I found. On order of fastest to slowest were:

  1. strrchr
  2. closely followed by strrpos
  3. then preg_replace
  4. with explode/end coming in almost twice as slow as the str* methods

Great, so the idea is to use the $ext = substr(strrchr($filename, '.'), 1); approach from now on? Hold on there sonny boy, not so fast! There is another contender which has not been considered yet (though some of you would have been screaming his name from the start). Time to introduce the pathinfo function.

“Hello”, says pathinfo.

Pathinfo does a number of things, depending on what we ask of it, but put simply it returns (path) information about a filepath. Full details can be found on the handy dandy pathinfo page in the PHP manual. Explore the PHP manual page when you get time, but for the purpose of this blog post I’ll hone in to one specific use of the function: getting the file extension. In order to do that, we simply call the function passing along the full filename and a ‘flag’ (a constant which dictates the behaviour of the function) asking for the extension only.

$filename = 'mypic.gif';
$ext = pathinfo($filename, PATHINFO_EXTENSION);

That’s all there is to it! In my opinion, this approach ‘reads’ much more easily than the mess of nested function calls and playing around with string positions, regular expressions, etc.. It is concise and to the point: call pathinfo and only give me back the extension. Simple.

Now for the icing on the cake. When pitched against the other methods detailed above, this call to pathinfo beats all of the others into submission. At least in my testing, it is the fastest method of all (though in random hiccups strrchr does win in around 1% of tests) being on average 1/10th faster than even the strrchr approach.

Summary, or “the bit lazy people should read”

So, to cut a long blog post short, the method that I’ll be using to grab the file extension is simply:

$filename = 'mypic.gif';
$ext = pathinfo($filename, PATHINFO_EXTENSION);

What do you currently use? Have you had any problems using pathinfo, any particular quirks or annoyances?

Previous
Next

27 Comments on PHP Get File Extension.

Add your two pennies, others have already donated theirs.

  1. Haris
    Jan 15 2008 at 03:59 UTC

    I used the explode() method which was really clean to me. explode() never annoyed me but it was a bit longer since you need to work on the array to print out the extension. (without die, I suppose).

    pathinfo() is really easy as compared to all the other contenders but proper profiling still needs to be done to find the fastest contender in terms of speed. I don’t really care about those 0.00001ms of speed but some do..

  2. Peter
    Jan 16 2008 at 16:04 UTC

    I know that someone are very, very interested in scraping away those thousands of milliseconds from their scripts — to a degree it also interests me in a “hmm, lets see what we can do” way rather than a necessity for each and every line of code I ever create.

    Personally, I think that pathinfo(..., PATHINFO_EXTENSION) is by far the easiest code snippet to read and understand quickly what is going on, compared to the other alternatives posted here. :)

  3. scott
    scott
    Jan 27 2008 at 23:55 UTC

    Hey. Just dropping a note of appreciation. Nice when someone publishes something that is simple and direct as to the best practice, given the myriad of options available to you in PHP.

    Thanks!

  4. Paul
    Feb 10 2008 at 01:01 UTC

    If you are making a file upload script, it is crucial that you use the pathinfo method to finding the true file extension. Because it is possible to fake out php by just renaming the file’s extension. Then when you upload it, if you use explode / strchr method, it will give you the wrong extension.

  5. Peter
    Feb 10 2008 at 20:50 UTC

    I’m not sure how providing a file extension which does not match the file content will “fake out” PHP but I do know that whichever of the methods listed above is used, they each produce the same result. If explode / strchr methods give the “wrong” extension, so will pathinfo.

  6. Paul
    Feb 12 2008 at 08:46 UTC

    Oh sorry, I was thinking of something else: http://www.jellyandcustard.com/2006/01/19/php-mime-types-and-fileinfo/

    But that’s only really important for file uploads, and I guess you were mainly talking about files that were already on the server. Myyy badd.

  7. Miro
    Miro
    Jul 25 2008 at 16:36 UTC

    if you can live with the dot:
    strrchr($name,’.')

    will return “.php”

  8. Miro
    Miro
    Jul 25 2008 at 16:39 UTC

    That’s about ~2x faster than pathinfo()

  9. Steve
    Steve
    Sep 5 2008 at 10:47 UTC

    Thank you.
    Nice and direct.

  10. Carl
    Carl
    Sep 20 2008 at 19:10 UTC

    Beautifully explained. Thanks!

  11. Chuck Hoight
    Chuck Hoight
    Nov 13 2008 at 02:40 UTC

    This is a great post, with useful, practical information. Hat’s off to you, sir.

  12. Robin Thomas
    Robin Thomas
    Apr 7 2009 at 03:50 UTC

    what about
    $filename = ‘my.pic.gif’;

  13. Peter
    Apr 7 2009 at 09:44 UTC

    Robin, pathinfo('my.pic.gif', PATHINFO_EXTENSION) would return gif as expected.

  14. Alex
    Apr 20 2009 at 23:20 UTC

    Thanks for this :) There are so many functions in PHP, and I have now discovered a new one :)

  15. Josso
    Josso
    Jun 19 2009 at 21:56 UTC

    And what about this:
    $fileinfo = “file.tar.gz”;

    Would it return the proper tar.gz or just the gz?

    Any way to easy do this or do we have to use the explode and check for every filetype? :/

    Cheers,

  16. Peter
    Jun 19 2009 at 22:45 UTC

    Thanks for the comment Josso. In that case gz would be returned as the file extension (which is fine if you see it as a gzipped tar file, and not a “tar gzip” file). It would be easy enough to look for the tar if you needed to for whatever reason.

  17. Corey
    Jul 19 2009 at 02:39 UTC

    Josso:

    A file named file.tar.gz is a gzip file, so ‘gz’ is the proper extension. If you gunzip it, you are left with a tarball with a ‘tar’ extension. This is all by design. An alternate extension for a gzipped tarball is .tgz, however it’s more technically valid to have .tar.gz. It does matter when you run into an instance where you want to gunzip without extracting the tarball.

  18. Zach
    Zach
    Oct 2 2009 at 07:43 UTC

    Ummm, NO! Do NOT use explode, strchr, substr etc. to parse filenames like this. You will end up with bugs and potential security problems. Why? Well, think about all the different permutations of filenames that can cause problems. This is especially true of user-input strings (like for file uploads, etc.). Use the pathinfo() function.

    Please update your article to reflect this so the monkeys of the world will stop using strchr in their code to parse paths. Thanks.

  19. Peter
    Oct 2 2009 at 09:00 UTC

    Would the monkey please take care to actually read the article in its entirety? The advice in the article is indeed to use the pathinfo function and there’s even a “bit lazy people should read” which summarises the post in under 30 words, but thanks for your concern.

  20. strony internetowe
    Oct 3 2009 at 08:22 UTC

    Thank you.
    Nice and direct.

  21. Robert Nicklin
    Nov 4 2009 at 22:04 UTC

    Great article specifically for the speed testing of the different options listed. Came in handy for a directory listing script I’m working on. Thanks!

  22. Nov 24 2009 at 13:36 UTC

    [...] get file extension comparison [...]

  23. Nikhil
    Nikhil
    Dec 7 2009 at 08:40 UTC

    i think that the explode method is not a reliable one.B’coz try uploading a file named filename.gif.php, the explode method will return the extension as .gif and it ignores the .php part. its a potentional security flow as any one can uplaod the php file and execute it.

    So i would recommend using the pathinfo function.

  24. Peter
    Dec 7 2009 at 11:54 UTC

    So i would recommend using the pathinfo function.

    Absolutely, that’s the entire point of this article. Thanks for commenting. :)

  25. Eric Di Bari
    Jan 20 2010 at 19:26 UTC

    Great accurate article. Thanks for condensing the functions into one lines as well, I always try to make my code as concise as possible. Thanks.

  26. Peter
    Jan 20 2010 at 19:40 UTC

    Thanks Eric. I too like concise code so long as it’s concise and readable; if the code is just mushed together and obfuscated for the sake of keeping it small, then that’s no so cool. :)

  27. ali
    ali
    Feb 23 2010 at 10:50 UTC

    thank you very much
    helpful and direct..
    keep it up!

Post Comment