使用这个方法得到所有范围没有错误

 public List<T> GetTsRate( List<T> AllT,int Index,int Count)
        {
            List<T> Ts = null;
            try
            {
                Ts = AllT.ToList().GetRange(Index, Count);
            }
            catch (Exception ex)
            {
                Ts = AllT.Skip(Index).ToList();
            }
            return Ts ;
        }

下面是一个方法，它适用于任何枚举对象，但只使用O(N)个临时存储:

public static class TakeLastExtension
{
    public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int takeCount)
    {
        if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); }
        if (takeCount < 0) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("takeCount", "must not be negative"); }
        if (takeCount == 0) { yield break; }

        T[] result = new T[takeCount];
        int i = 0;

        int sourceCount = 0;
        foreach (T element in source)
        {
            result[i] = element;
            i = (i + 1) % takeCount;
            sourceCount++;
        }

        if (sourceCount < takeCount)
        {
            takeCount = sourceCount;
            i = 0;
        }

        for (int j = 0; j < takeCount; ++j)
        {
            yield return result[(i + j) % takeCount];
        }
    }
}

用法:

List<int> l = new List<int> {4, 6, 3, 6, 2, 5, 7};
List<int> lastElements = l.TakeLast(3).ToList();

它的工作原理是使用一个大小为N的环形缓冲区来存储它看到的元素，用新元素覆盖旧元素。当到达枚举对象的末尾时，循环缓冲区包含最后N个元素。

我很惊讶没有人提到它，但是SkipWhile确实有一个使用元素索引的方法。

public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLastN<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int n)
{
    if (source == null)
        throw new ArgumentNullException("Source cannot be null");

    int goldenIndex = source.Count() - n;
    return source.SkipWhile((val, index) => index < goldenIndex);
}

//Or if you like them one-liners (in the spirit of the current accepted answer);
//However, this is most likely impractical due to the repeated calculations
collection.SkipWhile((val, index) => index < collection.Count() - N)

这种解决方案相对于其他解决方案的唯一明显好处是，您可以选择添加一个谓词，以生成更强大和更有效的LINQ查询，而不是使用两个单独的操作遍历IEnumerable两次。

public static IEnumerable<T> FilterLastN<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int n, Predicate<T> pred)
{
    int goldenIndex = source.Count() - n;
    return source.SkipWhile((val, index) => index < goldenIndex && pred(val));
}

以下是我的解决方案:

public static class EnumerationExtensions
{
    public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int count)
    {
        if (count <= 0)
            yield break;

        var inputList = input as IList<T>;

        if (inputList != null)
        {
            int last = inputList.Count;
            int first = last - count;

            if (first < 0)
                first = 0;

            for (int i = first; i < last; i++)
                yield return inputList[i];
        }
        else
        {
            // Use a ring buffer. We have to enumerate the input, and we don't know in advance how many elements it will contain.
            T[] buffer = new T[count];

            int index = 0;

            count = 0;

            foreach (T item in input)
            {
                buffer[index] = item;

                index = (index + 1) % buffer.Length;
                count++;
            }

            // The index variable now points at the next buffer entry that would be filled. If the buffer isn't completely
            // full, then there are 'count' elements preceding index. If the buffer *is* full, then index is pointing at
            // the oldest entry, which is the first one to return.
            //
            // If the buffer isn't full, which means that the enumeration has fewer than 'count' elements, we'll fix up
            // 'index' to point at the first entry to return. That's easy to do; if the buffer isn't full, then the oldest
            // entry is the first one. :-)
            //
            // We'll also set 'count' to the number of elements to be returned. It only needs adjustment if we've wrapped
            // past the end of the buffer and have enumerated more than the original count value.

            if (count < buffer.Length)
                index = 0;
            else
                count = buffer.Length;

            // Return the values in the correct order.
            while (count > 0)
            {
                yield return buffer[index];

                index = (index + 1) % buffer.Length;
                count--;
            }
        }
    }

    public static IEnumerable<T> SkipLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int count)
    {
        if (count <= 0)
            return input;
        else
            return input.SkipLastIter(count);
    }

    private static IEnumerable<T> SkipLastIter<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int count)
    {
        var inputList = input as IList<T>;

        if (inputList != null)
        {
            int first = 0;
            int last = inputList.Count - count;

            if (last < 0)
                last = 0;

            for (int i = first; i < last; i++)
                yield return inputList[i];
        }
        else
        {
            // Aim to leave 'count' items in the queue. If the input has fewer than 'count'
            // items, then the queue won't ever fill and we return nothing.

            Queue<T> elements = new Queue<T>();

            foreach (T item in input)
            {
                elements.Enqueue(item);

                if (elements.Count > count)
                    yield return elements.Dequeue();
            }
        }
    }
}

代码有点粗，但作为一个可重用的插入组件，它应该在大多数场景中表现得很好，并且它将使使用它的代码保持良好和简洁。: -)

我的TakeLast for non-IList ' 1是基于与@Mark Byers和@MackieChan回答中相同的环形缓冲算法。有趣的是，它们是如此相似——我是完全独立写的。我猜只有一种方法可以正确地使用环形缓冲区。: -)

看看@kbrimington的答案，可以为IQuerable<T>添加一个额外的检查，以回到与实体框架一起工作的方法——假设我在这一点上没有。

我知道现在回答这个问题已经太晚了。但是，如果您正在处理类型为IList<>的集合，并且您不关心返回集合的顺序，那么此方法工作得更快。我使用了Mark Byers的答案并做了一些改变。TakeLast方法是:

public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(IList<T> source, int takeCount)
{
    if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); }
    if (takeCount < 0) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("takeCount", "must not be negative"); }
    if (takeCount == 0) { yield break; }

    if (source.Count > takeCount)
    {
        for (int z = source.Count - 1; takeCount > 0; z--)
        {
            takeCount--;
            yield return source[z];
        }
    }
    else
    {
        for(int i = 0; i < source.Count; i++)
        {
            yield return source[i];
        }
    }
}

我用Mark Byers的方法和kbrimington的方法进行测试。这是测试:

IList<int> test = new List<int>();
for(int i = 0; i<1000000; i++)
{
    test.Add(i);
}

Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();

IList<int> result = TakeLast(test, 10).ToList();

stopwatch.Stop();

Stopwatch stopwatch1 = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch1.Start();

IList<int> result1 = TakeLast2(test, 10).ToList();

stopwatch1.Stop();

Stopwatch stopwatch2 = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch2.Start();

IList<int> result2 = test.Skip(Math.Max(0, test.Count - 10)).Take(10).ToList();

stopwatch2.Stop();

下面是取10个元素的结果:

取1000001个元素的结果为:

老实说，我对这个答案并不是特别自豪，但对于小的集合，你可以使用以下方法:

var lastN = collection.Reverse().Take(n).Reverse();

有点俗气，但它的工作;)