How to most efficiently test if two arrays contain equivalent items in C#
I have two arrays and I want to know if they contain the same items. Equals(object obj)
doesn't work because an array is a reference type. I have posted my attempt below, but since I'm sure this is a common task I'd like to know if there is a better test.
public bool ContainsEquivalentSequence<T>(T[] array1, T[] array2)
{
bool a1IsNullOrEmpty = ReferenceEquals(array1, null) || array1.Length == 0;
bool a2IsNullOrEmpty = ReferenceEquals(array2, null) || array2.Length == 0;
if (a1IsNullOrEmpty) return a2IsNullOrEmpty;
if (a2IsNullOrEmpty || array1.Length != array2.Length) return false;
for (int i = 0; i < array1.Length; i++)
if (!Equals(array1[i], array2[i]))
return false;
return true;
}
Update - System.Linq.Enumerable.SequenceEqual is not better
I reflected the source and it does not compare the length prior to executing the loop. This makes sense since the method is designed generally for an IEnumerable<T>
, not for a T[]
.
public static bool SequenceEqual<TSource>(this IEnumerable<TSource> first, IEnumerable<TSource> second, IEqualityComparer<TSource> comparer)
{
if (comparer == null)
{
comparer = EqualityComparer<TSource>.Default;
}
if (first == null)
{
thro开发者_StackOverflow社区w Error.ArgumentNull("first");
}
if (second == null)
{
throw Error.ArgumentNull("second");
}
using (IEnumerator<TSource> enumerator = first.GetEnumerator())
{
using (IEnumerator<TSource> enumerator2 = second.GetEnumerator())
{
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
if (!enumerator2.MoveNext() || !comparer.Equals(enumerator.Current, enumerator2.Current))
{
return false;
}
}
if (enumerator2.MoveNext())
{
return false;
}
}
}
return true;
}
I've done some tests using Any
, Contains
, All
and SequenceEqual
then I picked the best 3.
There are different results for different inputs...
Two identical arrays of size 100: SequenceEqual
was faster
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:00.027 ]*
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:00.046 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:00.281 ]
Two identical arrays of size 1000: SequenceEqual
was faster
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:00.240 ]*
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:00.361 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:00.491 ]
Two identical arrays of size 10000: Parallel
was faster
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:02.357 ]
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:03.341 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:01.688 ]*
Two identical arrays of size 50000: Parallel
kick ass
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:11.824 ]
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:17.206 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:06.811 ]*
Two arrays with one difference at position 200: SequenceEqual
was faster
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:00.050 ]*
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:00.075 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:00.332 ]
Two arrays with one difference at position 0: ContainsEqSeq
and SequenceEqual
were faster
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:00.002 ]*
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:00.001 ]*
[ Parallel: 00:00:00.211 ]
Two arrays with one difference at position 999: SequenceEqual
was faster
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:00.237 ]*
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:00.330 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:00.691 ]
Two arrays with one difference at position 9999: Parallel
kick ass
[ SequenceEqual: 00:00:02.386 ]
[ ContainsEqSeq: 00:00:03.417 ]
[ Parallel: 00:00:01.614 ]*
The code for SequenceEqual
is
a1.SequenceEqual(a2)
The code for ContainsEqSeq
is your method.
The code for Parallel
is
bool a1IsNullOrEmpty = ReferenceEquals(a1, null) || a1.Length == 0;
bool a2IsNullOrEmpty = ReferenceEquals(a2, null) || a2.Length == 0;
if (a1IsNullOrEmpty) return a2IsNullOrEmpty;
if (a2IsNullOrEmpty || a1.Length != a2.Length) return false;
var areEqual = true;
Parallel.ForEach(a1,
(i, s, x) =>
{
if (a1[x] != a2[x])
{
areEqual = false;
s.Stop();
}
});
return areEqual;
I would say that the best one depends on what your input will be.
If you will work with huge arrays (like 10000+) I would say Parallel
is the best choice, it only loses when there is a difference on the beginning.
For other cases SequenceEqual
might be the best one, I only tested with int[]
, but I believe it can be fast with complex types as well.
But remember, results will vary accordingly to the input.
精彩评论