我经常遇到这样的情况:我想在声明查询的地方对查询进行求值。这通常是因为我需要对它进行多次迭代，计算成本很高。例如:
string raw = "...";
var lines = (from l in raw.Split('\n')
let ll = l.Trim()
where !string.IsNullOrEmpty(ll)
select ll).ToList();
这很好。但是如果我不打算修改结果，那么我也可以调用ToArray()而不是ToList()。
然而，我想知道ToArray()是否通过首先调用ToList()来实现，因此内存效率比只调用ToList()低。
我疯了吗?我是否应该调用ToArray() -在知道内存不会被分配两次的情况下安全可靠?
当前回答
对于任何有兴趣在其他Linq-to-sql中使用此结果的人，例如
from q in context.MyTable
where myListOrArray.Contains(q.someID)
select q;
那么生成的SQL是相同的，无论你使用List或Array为myListOrArray。 现在我知道有些人可能会问为什么在这条语句之前枚举，但从IQueryable vs(列表或数组)生成的SQL之间是有区别的。
其他回答
编辑2:(这是对原始答案的更正)
使用基准。NET，我们可以通过性能测量来确认，公认的答案实际上是正确的:ToList在一般情况下更快，因为它不需要从已分配的缓冲区中修剪空空间。ToArray可能会执行额外的分配和复制操作，以使缓冲区的大小精确到元素的数量。
为了确认这一点，使用下面的基准测试。
[MemoryDiagnoser]
[ShortRunJob]
public class Benchmarks
{
[Params(0, 1, 6, 10, 42, 100, 1337, 10000)]
public int Count { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<int> Items => Enumerable.Range(0, Count).Where(i => i > 0);
[Benchmark(Baseline = true)]
public int[] ToArray() => Items.ToArray();
[Benchmark]
public List<int> ToList() => Items.ToList();
}
结果证实，在大多数情况下，ToList要快10% - 15%。
BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.1, OS=Windows 10.0.22000
Intel Core i9-10885H CPU 2.40GHz, 1 CPU, 16 logical and 8 physical cores
.NET SDK=6.0.302
[Host] : .NET 6.0.7 (6.0.722.32202), X64 RyuJIT
DefaultJob : .NET 6.0.7 (6.0.722.32202), X64 RyuJIT
| Method | Count | Mean | Error | StdDev | Ratio | RatioSD | Gen 0 | Gen 1 | Allocated |
|-------- |------ |-------------:|-----------:|-----------:|------:|--------:|--------:|-------:|----------:|
| ToArray | 0 | 29.73 ns | 0.546 ns | 0.536 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0067 | - | 56 B |
| ToList | 0 | 31.51 ns | 0.485 ns | 0.405 ns | 1.06 | 0.02 | 0.0105 | - | 88 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 1 | 37.36 ns | 0.314 ns | 0.294 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0114 | - | 96 B |
| ToList | 1 | 36.75 ns | 0.605 ns | 0.537 ns | 0.98 | 0.01 | 0.0153 | - | 128 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 6 | 100.05 ns | 1.522 ns | 1.349 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0286 | - | 240 B |
| ToList | 6 | 85.16 ns | 0.808 ns | 0.756 ns | 0.85 | 0.01 | 0.0267 | - | 224 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 10 | 137.20 ns | 2.766 ns | 2.452 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0372 | - | 312 B |
| ToList | 10 | 123.05 ns | 2.198 ns | 1.949 ns | 0.90 | 0.01 | 0.0372 | - | 312 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 42 | 398.25 ns | 6.583 ns | 5.836 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0877 | - | 736 B |
| ToList | 42 | 352.04 ns | 4.976 ns | 4.411 ns | 0.88 | 0.02 | 0.0887 | - | 744 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 100 | 730.80 ns | 6.501 ns | 6.081 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.1488 | - | 1,248 B |
| ToList | 100 | 705.49 ns | 9.947 ns | 9.305 ns | 0.97 | 0.01 | 0.1526 | - | 1,280 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 1337 | 8,023.57 ns | 147.388 ns | 137.867 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.6785 | 0.0458 | 14,056 B |
| ToList | 1337 | 7,980.27 ns | 138.469 ns | 122.749 ns | 1.00 | 0.02 | 1.9989 | 0.1221 | 16,736 B |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray | 10000 | 57,037.19 ns | 510.492 ns | 452.538 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 12.6343 | 1.7700 | 106,280 B |
| ToList | 10000 | 57,728.15 ns | 583.353 ns | 517.127 ns | 1.01 | 0.01 | 15.5640 | 5.1270 | 131,496 B |
作为参考，下面是原始答案，不幸的是，它只在一个非常特殊的情况下执行基准测试，避免了中间的调整大小和复制操作。
最初的回答:
现在已经是2020年了，每个人都在使用。net Core 3.1，所以我决定用Benchmark.NET运行一些基准测试。
TL;DR: ToArray()在性能方面更好，如果不打算改变集合，则可以更好地传达意图。
编辑:从注释中可以看出，这些基准测试可能不是指示性的，因为Enumerable.Range(…)返回一个IEnumerable<T>，其中包含关于序列大小的信息，随后在ToArray()的优化中使用它来预分配正确大小的数组。考虑为您的具体场景手动测试性能。
[MemoryDiagnoser]
public class Benchmarks
{
[Params(0, 1, 6, 10, 39, 100, 666, 1000, 1337, 10000)]
public int Count { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<int> Items => Enumerable.Range(0, Count);
[Benchmark(Description = "ToArray()", Baseline = true)]
public int[] ToArray() => Items.ToArray();
[Benchmark(Description = "ToList()")]
public List<int> ToList() => Items.ToList();
public static void Main() => BenchmarkRunner.Run<Benchmarks>();
}
结果如下:
BenchmarkDotNet=v0.12.0, OS=Windows 10.0.14393.3443 (1607/AnniversaryUpdate/Redstone1)
Intel Core i5-4460 CPU 3.20GHz (Haswell), 1 CPU, 4 logical and 4 physical cores
Frequency=3124994 Hz, Resolution=320.0006 ns, Timer=TSC
.NET Core SDK=3.1.100
[Host] : .NET Core 3.1.0 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.56402, CoreFX 4.700.19.56404), X64 RyuJIT
DefaultJob : .NET Core 3.1.0 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.56402, CoreFX 4.700.19.56404), X64 RyuJIT
| Method | Count | Mean | Error | StdDev | Median | Ratio | RatioSD | Gen 0 | Gen 1 | Gen 2 | Allocated |
|---------- |------ |--------------:|------------:|------------:|--------------:|------:|--------:|--------:|------:|------:|----------:|
| ToArray() | 0 | 7.357 ns | 0.2096 ns | 0.1960 ns | 7.323 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | - | - | - | - |
| ToList() | 0 | 13.174 ns | 0.2094 ns | 0.1958 ns | 13.084 ns | 1.79 | 0.05 | 0.0102 | - | - | 32 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 1 | 23.917 ns | 0.4999 ns | 0.4676 ns | 23.954 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0229 | - | - | 72 B |
| ToList() | 1 | 33.867 ns | 0.7350 ns | 0.6876 ns | 34.013 ns | 1.42 | 0.04 | 0.0331 | - | - | 104 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 6 | 28.242 ns | 0.5071 ns | 0.4234 ns | 28.196 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0280 | - | - | 88 B |
| ToList() | 6 | 43.516 ns | 0.9448 ns | 1.1949 ns | 42.896 ns | 1.56 | 0.06 | 0.0382 | - | - | 120 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 10 | 31.636 ns | 0.5408 ns | 0.4516 ns | 31.657 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0331 | - | - | 104 B |
| ToList() | 10 | 53.870 ns | 1.2988 ns | 2.2403 ns | 53.415 ns | 1.77 | 0.07 | 0.0433 | - | - | 136 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 39 | 58.896 ns | 0.9441 ns | 0.8369 ns | 58.548 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0713 | - | - | 224 B |
| ToList() | 39 | 138.054 ns | 2.8185 ns | 3.2458 ns | 138.937 ns | 2.35 | 0.08 | 0.0815 | - | - | 256 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 100 | 119.167 ns | 1.6195 ns | 1.4357 ns | 119.120 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.1478 | - | - | 464 B |
| ToList() | 100 | 274.053 ns | 5.1073 ns | 4.7774 ns | 272.242 ns | 2.30 | 0.06 | 0.1578 | - | - | 496 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 666 | 569.920 ns | 11.4496 ns | 11.2450 ns | 571.647 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.8688 | - | - | 2728 B |
| ToList() | 666 | 1,621.752 ns | 17.1176 ns | 16.0118 ns | 1,623.566 ns | 2.85 | 0.05 | 0.8793 | - | - | 2760 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 1000 | 796.705 ns | 16.7091 ns | 19.8910 ns | 796.610 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.2951 | - | - | 4064 B |
| ToList() | 1000 | 2,453.110 ns | 48.1121 ns | 65.8563 ns | 2,460.190 ns | 3.09 | 0.10 | 1.3046 | - | - | 4096 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 1337 | 1,057.983 ns | 20.9810 ns | 41.4145 ns | 1,041.028 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 1.7223 | - | - | 5416 B |
| ToList() | 1337 | 3,217.550 ns | 62.3777 ns | 61.2633 ns | 3,203.928 ns | 2.98 | 0.13 | 1.7357 | - | - | 5448 B |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| ToArray() | 10000 | 7,309.844 ns | 160.0343 ns | 141.8662 ns | 7,279.387 ns | 1.00 | 0.00 | 12.6572 | - | - | 40064 B |
| ToList() | 10000 | 23,858.032 ns | 389.6592 ns | 364.4874 ns | 23,759.001 ns | 3.26 | 0.08 | 12.6343 | - | - | 40096 B |
// * Hints *
Outliers
Benchmarks.ToArray(): Default -> 2 outliers were removed (35.20 ns, 35.29 ns)
Benchmarks.ToArray(): Default -> 2 outliers were removed (38.51 ns, 38.88 ns)
Benchmarks.ToList(): Default -> 1 outlier was removed (64.69 ns)
Benchmarks.ToArray(): Default -> 1 outlier was removed (67.02 ns)
Benchmarks.ToArray(): Default -> 1 outlier was removed (130.08 ns)
Benchmarks.ToArray(): Default -> 1 outlier was detected (541.82 ns)
Benchmarks.ToArray(): Default -> 1 outlier was removed (7.82 us)
// * Legends *
Count : Value of the 'Count' parameter
Mean : Arithmetic mean of all measurements
Error : Half of 99.9% confidence interval
StdDev : Standard deviation of all measurements
Median : Value separating the higher half of all measurements (50th percentile)
Ratio : Mean of the ratio distribution ([Current]/[Baseline])
RatioSD : Standard deviation of the ratio distribution ([Current]/[Baseline])
Gen 0 : GC Generation 0 collects per 1000 operations
Gen 1 : GC Generation 1 collects per 1000 operations
Gen 2 : GC Generation 2 collects per 1000 operations
Allocated : Allocated memory per single operation (managed only, inclusive, 1KB = 1024B)
1 ns : 1 Nanosecond (0.000000001 sec)
这是一个老问题了——但是为了方便无意中发现它的用户，还有一种“Memoizing”Enumerable的替代方案——它具有缓存和停止Linq语句的多个枚举的效果，这就是ToArray()和ToList()经常被使用的原因，即使列表或数组的集合属性从未被使用。
Memoize在RX/System中可用。交互式库，并在这里解释: 更多LINQ与系统。互动
(摘自Bart De 's met的博客，如果你经常使用Linq to Objects，强烈推荐你阅读)
性能差异并不显著，因为List<T>是作为动态大小的数组实现的。调用ToArray()(它使用内部Buffer<T>类来增长数组)或ToList()(它调用List<T>(IEnumerable<T>)构造函数)将最终成为将它们放入数组并增长数组直到适合它们为止的问题。
如果您希望具体确认这一事实，请查看Reflector中所讨论的方法的实现——您将看到它们的代码几乎完全相同。
首选ToListAsync<T>()。
在实体框架6中，这两个方法最终都调用相同的内部方法，但ToArrayAsync<T>()在最后调用list.ToArray()，实现为
T[] array = new T[_size];
Array.Copy(_items, 0, array, 0, _size);
return array;
所以ToArrayAsync<T>()有一些开销，因此ToListAsync<T>()是首选。
一个很晚的答案，但我认为这对谷歌人有帮助。
They both suck when they created using linq. They both implement same code to resize buffer if necessary. ToArray internally uses a class to convert IEnumerable<> to array, by allocating an array of 4 elements. If that is not enough than it doubles the size by creating a new array double the size of current and copying current array to it. At the end it allocates a new array of count of your items. If your query returns 129 elements then ToArray will make 6 allocations and memory copy operations to create a 256 element array and than am another array of 129 to return. so much for memory efficiency.
ToList做同样的事情，但是它跳过了最后的分配，因为您可以在将来添加项。List不关心它是从linq查询创建的还是手动创建的。
List在内存上更好，但在cpu上更差，因为List是一个通用的解决方案，每个操作都需要范围检查，除了.net内部的数组范围检查之外。
因此，如果你将迭代你的结果集太多次，那么数组是很好的，因为它意味着比列表更少的范围检查，编译器通常优化数组的顺序访问。
如果在创建List时指定capacity参数，则它的初始化分配可以更好。在这种情况下，它将只分配数组一次，假设您知道结果大小。linq的ToList没有指定重载来提供它，因此我们必须创建扩展方法，该方法创建一个具有给定容量的列表，然后使用list <>. addrange。
为了完成这个问题，我必须写出下面的句子
At the end, you can use either an ToArray, or ToList, performance will not be so different ( see answer of @EMP ). You are using C#. If you need performance then do not worry about writing about high performance code, but worry about not writing bad performance code. Always target x64 for high performance code. AFAIK, x64 JIT is based on C++ compiler, and does some funny things like tail recursion optimizations. With 4.5 you can also enjoy the profile guided optimization and multi core JIT. At last, you can use async/await pattern to process it quicker.
