显然,通用HashSet<T>
类的搜索性能高于通用List<T>
类的搜索性能。 只需将基于哈希的键与List<T>
类中的线性方法进行比较。 tcp
可是,计算哈希键自己可能会花费一些CPU周期,所以对于少许项,线性搜索能够真正替代HashSet<T>
。 性能
个人问题:收支平衡在哪里? 测试
为了简化场景(公平地说),咱们假设List<T>
类使用元素的Equals()
方法来标识项目。 spa
不少人说,一旦达到实际速度的大小, HashSet<T>
就会始终赛过List<T>
,但这取决于您在作什么。 pwa
假设您有一个List<T>
,平均只有5个项目。 在大量周期中,若是每一个周期添加或删除一个项目,则最好使用List<T>
。 code
我在个人机器上对此进行了测试,而且,它必须很是小才能从List<T>
得到优点。 对于短字符串列表,对于5号以后的对象,优势在5号以后消失了。 对象
1 item LIST strs time: 617ms 1 item HASHSET strs time: 1332ms 2 item LIST strs time: 781ms 2 item HASHSET strs time: 1354ms 3 item LIST strs time: 950ms 3 item HASHSET strs time: 1405ms 4 item LIST strs time: 1126ms 4 item HASHSET strs time: 1441ms 5 item LIST strs time: 1370ms 5 item HASHSET strs time: 1452ms 6 item LIST strs time: 1481ms 6 item HASHSET strs time: 1418ms 7 item LIST strs time: 1581ms 7 item HASHSET strs time: 1464ms 8 item LIST strs time: 1726ms 8 item HASHSET strs time: 1398ms 9 item LIST strs time: 1901ms 9 item HASHSET strs time: 1433ms 1 item LIST objs time: 614ms 1 item HASHSET objs time: 1993ms 4 item LIST objs time: 837ms 4 item HASHSET objs time: 1914ms 7 item LIST objs time: 1070ms 7 item HASHSET objs time: 1900ms 10 item LIST objs time: 1267ms 10 item HASHSET objs time: 1904ms 13 item LIST objs time: 1494ms 13 item HASHSET objs time: 1893ms 16 item LIST objs time: 1695ms 16 item HASHSET objs time: 1879ms 19 item LIST objs time: 1902ms 19 item HASHSET objs time: 1950ms 22 item LIST objs time: 2136ms 22 item HASHSET objs time: 1893ms 25 item LIST objs time: 2357ms 25 item HASHSET objs time: 1826ms 28 item LIST objs time: 2555ms 28 item HASHSET objs time: 1865ms 31 item LIST objs time: 2755ms 31 item HASHSET objs time: 1963ms 34 item LIST objs time: 3025ms 34 item HASHSET objs time: 1874ms 37 item LIST objs time: 3195ms 37 item HASHSET objs time: 1958ms 40 item LIST objs time: 3401ms 40 item HASHSET objs time: 1855ms 43 item LIST objs time: 3618ms 43 item HASHSET objs time: 1869ms 46 item LIST objs time: 3883ms 46 item HASHSET objs time: 2046ms 49 item LIST objs time: 4218ms 49 item HASHSET objs time: 1873ms
这是显示为图形的数据: 索引
这是代码: 图片
static void Main(string[] args) { int times = 10000000; for (int listSize = 1; listSize < 10; listSize++) { List<string> list = new List<string>(); HashSet<string> hashset = new HashSet<string>(); for (int i = 0; i < listSize; i++) { list.Add("string" + i.ToString()); hashset.Add("string" + i.ToString()); } Stopwatch timer = new Stopwatch(); timer.Start(); for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) { list.Remove("string0"); list.Add("string0"); } timer.Stop(); Console.WriteLine(listSize.ToString() + " item LIST strs time: " + timer.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString() + "ms"); timer = new Stopwatch(); timer.Start(); for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) { hashset.Remove("string0"); hashset.Add("string0"); } timer.Stop(); Console.WriteLine(listSize.ToString() + " item HASHSET strs time: " + timer.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString() + "ms"); Console.WriteLine(); } for (int listSize = 1; listSize < 50; listSize+=3) { List<object> list = new List<object>(); HashSet<object> hashset = new HashSet<object>(); for (int i = 0; i < listSize; i++) { list.Add(new object()); hashset.Add(new object()); } object objToAddRem = list[0]; Stopwatch timer = new Stopwatch(); timer.Start(); for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) { list.Remove(objToAddRem); list.Add(objToAddRem); } timer.Stop(); Console.WriteLine(listSize.ToString() + " item LIST objs time: " + timer.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString() + "ms"); timer = new Stopwatch(); timer.Start(); for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) { hashset.Remove(objToAddRem); hashset.Add(objToAddRem); } timer.Stop(); Console.WriteLine(listSize.ToString() + " item HASHSET objs time: " + timer.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString() + "ms"); Console.WriteLine(); } Console.ReadLine(); }
只是想我会参考一些针对不一样状况的基准来讲明先前的答案: ip
对于每种状况,查找出现的值:
在每种状况下,我生成随机大小的随机字符串列表,而后将每一个列表馈入哈希集。 每一个方案都运行了10,000次,基本上是:
(测试伪代码)
stopwatch.start for X times exists = list.Contains(lookup); stopwatch.stop stopwatch.start for X times exists = hashset.Contains(lookup); stopwatch.stop
在Windows 七、12GB Ram,64位,Xeon 2.8GHz上进行了测试
---------- Testing few small strings ------------ Sample items: (16 total) vgnwaloqf diwfpxbv tdcdc grfch icsjwk ... Benchmarks: 1: hashset: late -- 100.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0018398 sec] 2: hashset: middle -- 104.19 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0019169 sec] 3: hashset: end -- 108.21 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0019908 sec] 4: list: early -- 144.62 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0026607 sec] 5: hashset: start -- 174.32 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0032071 sec] 6: list: middle -- 187.72 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0034536 sec] 7: list: late -- 192.66 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0035446 sec] 8: list: end -- 215.42 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0039633 sec] 9: hashset: early -- 217.95 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0040098 sec] 10: list: start -- 576.55 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0106073 sec] ---------- Testing many small strings ------------ Sample items: (10346 total) dmnowa yshtrxorj vthjk okrxegip vwpoltck ... Benchmarks: 1: hashset: end -- 100.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0017443 sec] 2: hashset: late -- 102.91 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0017951 sec] 3: hashset: middle -- 106.23 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0018529 sec] 4: list: early -- 107.49 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0018749 sec] 5: list: start -- 126.23 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0022018 sec] 6: hashset: early -- 134.11 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0023393 sec] 7: hashset: start -- 372.09 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0064903 sec] 8: list: middle -- 48,593.79 % -- [Elapsed: 0.8476214 sec] 9: list: end -- 99,020.73 % -- [Elapsed: 1.7272186 sec] 10: list: late -- 99,089.36 % -- [Elapsed: 1.7284155 sec] ---------- Testing few long strings ------------ Sample items: (19 total) hidfymjyjtffcjmlcaoivbylakmqgoiowbgxpyhnrreodxyleehkhsofjqenyrrtlphbcnvdrbqdvji... ... Benchmarks: 1: list: early -- 100.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0018266 sec] 2: list: start -- 115.76 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0021144 sec] 3: list: middle -- 143.44 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0026201 sec] 4: list: late -- 190.05 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0034715 sec] 5: list: end -- 193.78 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0035395 sec] 6: hashset: early -- 215.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0039271 sec] 7: hashset: end -- 248.47 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0045386 sec] 8: hashset: start -- 298.04 % -- [Elapsed: 0.005444 sec] 9: hashset: middle -- 325.63 % -- [Elapsed: 0.005948 sec] 10: hashset: late -- 431.62 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0078839 sec] ---------- Testing many long strings ------------ Sample items: (5000 total) yrpjccgxjbketcpmnvyqvghhlnjblhgimybdygumtijtrwaromwrajlsjhxoselbucqualmhbmwnvnpnm ... Benchmarks: 1: list: early -- 100.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0016211 sec] 2: list: start -- 132.73 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0021517 sec] 3: hashset: start -- 231.26 % -- [Elapsed: 0.003749 sec] 4: hashset: end -- 368.74 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0059776 sec] 5: hashset: middle -- 385.50 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0062493 sec] 6: hashset: late -- 406.23 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0065854 sec] 7: hashset: early -- 421.34 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0068304 sec] 8: list: middle -- 18,619.12 % -- [Elapsed: 0.3018345 sec] 9: list: end -- 40,942.82 % -- [Elapsed: 0.663724 sec] 10: list: late -- 41,188.19 % -- [Elapsed: 0.6677017 sec] ---------- Testing few ints ------------ Sample items: (16 total) 7266092 60668895 159021363 216428460 28007724 ... Benchmarks: 1: hashset: early -- 100.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0016211 sec] 2: hashset: end -- 100.45 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0016284 sec] 3: list: early -- 101.83 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0016507 sec] 4: hashset: late -- 108.95 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0017662 sec] 5: hashset: middle -- 112.29 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0018204 sec] 6: hashset: start -- 120.33 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0019506 sec] 7: list: late -- 134.45 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0021795 sec] 8: list: start -- 136.43 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0022117 sec] 9: list: end -- 169.77 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0027522 sec] 10: list: middle -- 237.94 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0038573 sec] ---------- Testing many ints ------------ Sample items: (10357 total) 370826556 569127161 101235820 792075135 270823009 ... Benchmarks: 1: list: early -- 100.00 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0015132 sec] 2: hashset: end -- 101.79 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0015403 sec] 3: hashset: early -- 102.08 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0015446 sec] 4: hashset: middle -- 103.21 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0015618 sec] 5: hashset: late -- 104.26 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0015776 sec] 6: list: start -- 126.78 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0019184 sec] 7: hashset: start -- 130.91 % -- [Elapsed: 0.0019809 sec] 8: list: middle -- 16,497.89 % -- [Elapsed: 0.2496461 sec] 9: list: end -- 32,715.52 % -- [Elapsed: 0.4950512 sec] 10: list: late -- 33,698.87 % -- [Elapsed: 0.5099313 sec]
这取决于。 若是确切的答案确实很重要,请进行分析并找出答案。 若是您肯定集合中的元素数量毫不会超过必定数量,请使用列表。 若是数字不受限制,请使用HashSet。
收支平衡将取决于计算哈希的成本。 哈希运算能够很简单,也能够不是……:-)始终有System.Collections.Specialized.HybridDictionary类可帮助您没必要担忧盈亏平衡点。
取决于许多因素...列表实现,CPU体系结构,JVM,循环语义,equals方法的复杂性等...到列表变得足够大以有效进行基准测试(1000多个元素)时,基于哈希的二进制文件查找赛过线性搜索,并且差值仅从那里扩大。
但愿这能够帮助!