什么时候使用List和LinkedList更好?
当前回答
这是改编自Tono Nam的公认的答案，纠正了一些错误的测量。
测试:
static void Main()
{
LinkedListPerformance.AddFirst_List(); // 12028 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddFirst_LinkedList(); // 33 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddLast_List(); // 33 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddLast_LinkedList(); // 32 ms
LinkedListPerformance.Enumerate_List(); // 1.08 ms
LinkedListPerformance.Enumerate_LinkedList(); // 3.4 ms
//I tried below as fun exercise - not very meaningful, see code
//sort of equivalent to insertion when having the reference to middle node
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_List(); // 5724 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_LinkedList1(); // 36 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_LinkedList2(); // 32 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_LinkedList3(); // 454 ms
Environment.Exit(-1);
}
代码是:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
namespace stackoverflow
{
static class LinkedListPerformance
{
class Temp
{
public decimal A, B, C, D;
public Temp(decimal a, decimal b, decimal c, decimal d)
{
A = a; B = b; C = c; D = d;
}
}
static readonly int start = 0;
static readonly int end = 123456;
static readonly IEnumerable<Temp> query = Enumerable.Range(start, end - start).Select(temp);
static Temp temp(int i)
{
return new Temp(i, i, i, i);
}
static void StopAndPrint(this Stopwatch watch)
{
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds);
}
public static void AddFirst_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
list.Insert(0, temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void AddFirst_LinkedList()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
list.AddFirst(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void AddLast_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
list.Add(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void AddLast_LinkedList()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void Enumerate_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>(query);
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
foreach (var item in list)
{
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void Enumerate_LinkedList()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>(query);
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
foreach (var item in list)
{
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//for the fun of it, I tried to time inserting to the middle of
//linked list - this is by no means a realistic scenario! or may be
//these make sense if you assume you have the reference to middle node
//insertion to the middle of list
public static void AddMiddle_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
list.Insert(list.Count / 2, temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//insertion in linked list in such a fashion that
//it has the same effect as inserting into the middle of list
public static void AddMiddle_LinkedList1()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
LinkedListNode<Temp> evenNode = null, oddNode = null;
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
oddNode = evenNode = list.AddLast(temp(i));
else
if (list.Count % 2 == 1)
oddNode = list.AddBefore(evenNode, temp(i));
else
evenNode = list.AddAfter(oddNode, temp(i));
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//another hacky way
public static void AddMiddle_LinkedList2()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start + 1; i < end; i += 2)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
for (int i = end - 2; i >= 0; i -= 2)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//OP's original more sensible approach, but I tried to filter out
//the intermediate iteration cost in finding the middle node.
public static void AddMiddle_LinkedList3()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
else
{
watch.Stop();
var curNode = list.First;
for (var j = 0; j < list.Count / 2; j++)
curNode = curNode.Next;
watch.Start();
list.AddBefore(curNode, temp(i));
}
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
}
}
你可以看到结果与其他人在这里记录的理论性能是一致的。很清楚- LinkedList<T>在插入的情况下获得了很大的时间。我还没有测试从列表中间删除，但结果应该是相同的。当然，List<T>在其他方面表现得更好，比如O(1)随机访问。
其他回答
链表相对于数组的主要优点是，链接为我们提供了有效地重新排列项的能力。 塞奇威克，第91页
我同意上面提到的大部分观点。我也同意，在大多数情况下，List看起来是一个更明显的选择。
但是，我只是想补充一点，在很多情况下，LinkedList比List更有效。
假设你正在遍历元素，你想要执行大量的插入/删除;LinkedList在线性O(n)时间内完成，而List在二次O(n²)时间内完成。 假设你想一次又一次地访问更大的对象，LinkedList就变得非常有用。 Deque()和queue()更好地使用LinkedList实现。 当你处理很多更大的对象时，增加LinkedList的大小会更容易和更好。
希望有人会觉得这些评论有用。
Edit
请阅读对这个答案的评论。人们说我没有 适当的测试。我同意这不应该是一个可以接受的答案。就像我一样 我做了一些测试，想和大家分享。
最初的回答…
我发现了有趣的结果:
// Temporary class to show the example
class Temp
{
public decimal A, B, C, D;
public Temp(decimal a, decimal b, decimal c, decimal d)
{
A = a; B = b; C = c; D = d;
}
}
链表(3.9秒)
LinkedList<Temp> list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
for (var i = 0; i < 12345678; i++)
{
var a = new Temp(i, i, i, i);
list.AddLast(a);
}
decimal sum = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
sum += item.A;
列表(2.4秒)
List<Temp> list = new List<Temp>(); // 2.4 seconds
for (var i = 0; i < 12345678; i++)
{
var a = new Temp(i, i, i, i);
list.Add(a);
}
decimal sum = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
sum += item.A;
即使你只是访问数据，本质上也要慢得多!!我说永远不要使用linkedList。
下面是另一个执行大量插入的比较(我们计划在列表中间插入一个项)
链表(51秒)
LinkedList<Temp> list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
for (var i = 0; i < 123456; i++)
{
var a = new Temp(i, i, i, i);
list.AddLast(a);
var curNode = list.First;
for (var k = 0; k < i/2; k++) // In order to insert a node at the middle of the list we need to find it
curNode = curNode.Next;
list.AddAfter(curNode, a); // Insert it after
}
decimal sum = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
sum += item.A;
榜单(7.26秒)
List<Temp> list = new List<Temp>();
for (var i = 0; i < 123456; i++)
{
var a = new Temp(i, i, i, i);
list.Insert(i / 2, a);
}
decimal sum = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
sum += item.A;
有插入位置引用的链表(。04秒)
list.AddLast(new Temp(1,1,1,1));
var referenceNode = list.First;
for (var i = 0; i < 123456; i++)
{
var a = new Temp(i, i, i, i);
list.AddLast(a);
list.AddBefore(referenceNode, a);
}
decimal sum = 0;
foreach (var item in list)
sum += item.A;
因此，只有当你计划插入几个项目，并且你也在某个地方有你计划插入项目的引用时，才使用链表。只是因为你必须插入很多项，这并不会使它更快，因为搜索你想要插入的位置需要时间。
使用LinkedList<>时
你不知道有多少东西会通过防洪闸门。例如，令牌流。 当你只想在结尾删除\插入。
对于其他内容，最好使用List<>。
这是改编自Tono Nam的公认的答案，纠正了一些错误的测量。
测试:
static void Main()
{
LinkedListPerformance.AddFirst_List(); // 12028 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddFirst_LinkedList(); // 33 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddLast_List(); // 33 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddLast_LinkedList(); // 32 ms
LinkedListPerformance.Enumerate_List(); // 1.08 ms
LinkedListPerformance.Enumerate_LinkedList(); // 3.4 ms
//I tried below as fun exercise - not very meaningful, see code
//sort of equivalent to insertion when having the reference to middle node
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_List(); // 5724 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_LinkedList1(); // 36 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_LinkedList2(); // 32 ms
LinkedListPerformance.AddMiddle_LinkedList3(); // 454 ms
Environment.Exit(-1);
}
代码是:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
namespace stackoverflow
{
static class LinkedListPerformance
{
class Temp
{
public decimal A, B, C, D;
public Temp(decimal a, decimal b, decimal c, decimal d)
{
A = a; B = b; C = c; D = d;
}
}
static readonly int start = 0;
static readonly int end = 123456;
static readonly IEnumerable<Temp> query = Enumerable.Range(start, end - start).Select(temp);
static Temp temp(int i)
{
return new Temp(i, i, i, i);
}
static void StopAndPrint(this Stopwatch watch)
{
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(watch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds);
}
public static void AddFirst_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
list.Insert(0, temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void AddFirst_LinkedList()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
list.AddFirst(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void AddLast_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
list.Add(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void AddLast_LinkedList()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void Enumerate_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>(query);
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
foreach (var item in list)
{
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
public static void Enumerate_LinkedList()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>(query);
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
foreach (var item in list)
{
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//for the fun of it, I tried to time inserting to the middle of
//linked list - this is by no means a realistic scenario! or may be
//these make sense if you assume you have the reference to middle node
//insertion to the middle of list
public static void AddMiddle_List()
{
var list = new List<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
list.Insert(list.Count / 2, temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//insertion in linked list in such a fashion that
//it has the same effect as inserting into the middle of list
public static void AddMiddle_LinkedList1()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
LinkedListNode<Temp> evenNode = null, oddNode = null;
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
oddNode = evenNode = list.AddLast(temp(i));
else
if (list.Count % 2 == 1)
oddNode = list.AddBefore(evenNode, temp(i));
else
evenNode = list.AddAfter(oddNode, temp(i));
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//another hacky way
public static void AddMiddle_LinkedList2()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start + 1; i < end; i += 2)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
for (int i = end - 2; i >= 0; i -= 2)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
//OP's original more sensible approach, but I tried to filter out
//the intermediate iteration cost in finding the middle node.
public static void AddMiddle_LinkedList3()
{
var list = new LinkedList<Temp>();
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (var i = start; i < end; i++)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
list.AddLast(temp(i));
else
{
watch.Stop();
var curNode = list.First;
for (var j = 0; j < list.Count / 2; j++)
curNode = curNode.Next;
watch.Start();
list.AddBefore(curNode, temp(i));
}
}
watch.StopAndPrint();
}
}
}
你可以看到结果与其他人在这里记录的理论性能是一致的。很清楚- LinkedList<T>在插入的情况下获得了很大的时间。我还没有测试从列表中间删除，但结果应该是相同的。当然，List<T>在其他方面表现得更好，比如O(1)随机访问。
推荐文章
- 在c#中从URI字符串获取文件名
- 检查SqlDataReader对象中的列名
- 如何将类标记为已弃用?
- c# 8支持。net框架吗?
- Linq-to-Entities Join vs GroupJoin
- 为什么字符串类型的默认值是null而不是空字符串?
- 在list中获取不同值的列表
- 组合框:向项目添加文本和值(无绑定源)
- AutoMapper:“忽略剩下的?”
- 如何为ASP.net/C#应用程序配置文件值中的值添加&号
- 从System.Drawing.Bitmap中加载WPF BitmapImage
- 如何找出一个文件存在于c# / .NET?
- 为什么更快地检查字典是否包含键，而不是捕捉异常，以防它不?
- [DataContract]的命名空间
- string. isnullorempty (string) vs. string. isnullowhitespace (string)
