实际上，如果在循环中执行一些复杂的计算，那么数组索引器与列表索引器的性能可能会非常小，最终，这无关紧要。

static long[] longs = new long[500000];
static long[] longs2 = {};
static List<long> listLongs = new List<long> { };
static void Main(string[] args)
{
    Console.CursorVisible = false;
    Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();

    time.Start();
    for (int f = 50000000; f < 50255000; f++)
    {
        listLongs.Add(f);
    }

    //List  Time: 1ms    Count : 255000
    Console.WriteLine("List Time: " + time.ElapsedMilliseconds + " | Count: " + listLongs.Count());

    time.Restart();
    time.Start();
    for (long i = 1; i < 500000; i++)
    {
        longs[i] = i * 200;
    }

    //Array Time: 2ms Length: 500000 (Unrealistic Data)
    Console.WriteLine("Array Time: " + time.ElapsedMilliseconds + " | Length: " + longs.Length);

    time.Restart();
    time.Start();
    for (int i = 50000000; i < 50055000; i++)
    {
        longs2 = longs2.Append(i).ToArray();
    }

    //Array Time: 17950ms Length: 55000
    Console.WriteLine("Array Append Time: " + time.ElapsedMilliseconds + " | Length: " + longs2.Length);

    Console.ReadLine();
}

如果您计划不断地向数组中添加少量数据，那么list更快

这实际上取决于你将如何使用数组。

我担心在其他答案中发布的基准测试仍然会为编译器留下优化，消除或合并循环的空间，所以我写了一个:

使用不可预测的输入(随机) 运行计算结果并将结果打印到控制台 每次重复修改输入数据

结果是，直接数组的性能比访问封装在IList中的数组要好250%:

10亿次数组访问:4000毫秒 10亿次列表访问:10000毫秒 1亿个数组访问:350毫秒 1亿次列表访问:1000毫秒

代码如下:

static void Main(string[] args) {
  const int TestPointCount = 1000000;
  const int RepetitionCount = 1000;

  Stopwatch arrayTimer = new Stopwatch();
  Stopwatch listTimer = new Stopwatch();

  Point2[] points = new Point2[TestPointCount];
  var random = new Random();
  for (int index = 0; index < TestPointCount; ++index) {
    points[index].X = random.NextDouble();
    points[index].Y = random.NextDouble();
  }

  for (int repetition = 0; repetition <= RepetitionCount; ++repetition) {
    if (repetition > 0) { // first repetition is for cache warmup
      arrayTimer.Start();
    }
    doWorkOnArray(points);
    if (repetition > 0) { // first repetition is for cache warmup
      arrayTimer.Stop();
    }

    if (repetition > 0) { // first repetition is for cache warmup
      listTimer.Start();
    }
    doWorkOnList(points);
    if (repetition > 0) { // first repetition is for cache warmup
      listTimer.Stop();
    }
  }

  Console.WriteLine("Ignore this: " + points[0].X + points[0].Y);
  Console.WriteLine(
    string.Format(
      "{0} accesses on array took {1} ms",
      RepetitionCount * TestPointCount, arrayTimer.ElapsedMilliseconds
    )
  );
  Console.WriteLine(
    string.Format(
      "{0} accesses on list took {1} ms",
      RepetitionCount * TestPointCount, listTimer.ElapsedMilliseconds
    )
  );

}

private static void doWorkOnArray(Point2[] points) {
  var random = new Random();

  int pointCount = points.Length;

  Point2 accumulated = Point2.Zero;
  for (int index = 0; index < pointCount; ++index) {
    accumulated.X += points[index].X;
    accumulated.Y += points[index].Y;
  }

  accumulated /= pointCount;

  // make use of the result somewhere so the optimizer can't eliminate the loop
  // also modify the input collection so the optimizer can merge the repetition loop
  points[random.Next(0, pointCount)] = accumulated;
}

private static void doWorkOnList(IList<Point2> points) {
  var random = new Random();

  int pointCount = points.Count;

  Point2 accumulated = Point2.Zero;
  for (int index = 0; index < pointCount; ++index) {
    accumulated.X += points[index].X;
    accumulated.Y += points[index].Y;
  }

  accumulated /= pointCount;

  // make use of the result somewhere so the optimizer can't eliminate the loop
  // also modify the input collection so the optimizer can merge the repetition loop
  points[random.Next(0, pointCount)] = accumulated;
}

[另见此问题]

我修改了Marc的答案，使用实际的随机数，在所有情况下都做同样的工作。

结果:

         for      foreach
Array : 1575ms     1575ms (+0%)
List  : 1630ms     2627ms (+61%)
         (+3%)     (+67%)

(Checksum: -1000038876)

在VS 2008 SP1下编译为发行版。在Q6600@2.40GHz、. net 3.5 SP1上运行而不进行调试。

代码:

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        List<int> list = new List<int>(6000000);
        Random rand = new Random(1);
        for (int i = 0; i < 6000000; i++)
        {
            list.Add(rand.Next());
        }
        int[] arr = list.ToArray();

        int chk = 0;
        Stopwatch watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            int len = list.Count;
            for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
            {
                chk += list[i];
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("List/for: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        chk = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            int len = arr.Length;
            for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
            {
                chk += arr[i];
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("Array/for: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        chk = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            foreach (int i in list)
            {
                chk += i;
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("List/foreach: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        chk = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            foreach (int i in arr)
            {
                chk += i;
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("Array/foreach: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);
        Console.WriteLine();

        Console.ReadLine();
    }
}

我想表演会很相似。 在使用List和Array时所涉及的开销是，恕我直言，当您向列表中添加项时，当列表必须增加它在内部使用的数组的大小时，当数组的容量达到时。

假设你有一个容量为10的List，那么一旦你想添加第11个元素，List就会增加它的容量。 可以通过将列表的Capacity初始化为它将容纳的项数来减少性能影响。

但是，为了弄清楚遍历List是否与遍历数组一样快，为什么不对其进行基准测试呢?

int numberOfElements = 6000000;

List<int> theList = new List<int> (numberOfElements);
int[] theArray = new int[numberOfElements];

for( int i = 0; i < numberOfElements; i++ )
{
    theList.Add (i);
    theArray[i] = i;
}

Stopwatch chrono = new Stopwatch ();

chrono.Start ();

int j;

 for( int i = 0; i < numberOfElements; i++ )
 {
     j = theList[i];
 }

 chrono.Stop ();
 Console.WriteLine (String.Format("iterating the List took {0} msec", chrono.ElapsedMilliseconds));

 chrono.Reset();

 chrono.Start();

 for( int i = 0; i < numberOfElements; i++ )
 {
     j = theArray[i];
 }

 chrono.Stop ();
 Console.WriteLine (String.Format("iterating the array took {0} msec", chrono.ElapsedMilliseconds));

 Console.ReadLine();

在我的系统上;遍历数组需要33msec;遍历列表花费了66msec。

说实话，我没想到变化会这么大。 所以，我把我的迭代放在一个循环中:现在，我执行了1000次迭代。 结果如下:

迭代List需要67146毫秒 迭代数组需要40821毫秒

现在，变化不再那么大了，但仍然……

因此，我已经启动了。net Reflector, List类的索引器的getter看起来像这样:

public T get_Item(int index)
{
    if (index >= this._size)
    {
        ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentOutOfRangeException();
    }
    return this._items[index];
}

如您所见，当您使用List的索引器时，List会执行一次检查，检查您是否没有超出内部数组的边界。这种额外的检查是有成本的。

很容易测量…

在少量的紧循环处理代码中，我知道长度是固定的，我使用数组来进行额外的微小优化;如果你使用索引器/ for表单，数组可以稍微快一点——但是IIRC认为这取决于数组中数据的类型。但除非你需要进行微观优化，否则尽量保持简单，使用List<T>等。

当然，这只适用于读取所有数据的情况;对于基于键的查找，字典会更快。

下面是我使用“int”的结果(第二个数字是一个校验和，以验证它们都做了相同的工作):

(修改bug)

List/for: 1971ms (589725196)
Array/for: 1864ms (589725196)
List/foreach: 3054ms (589725196)
Array/foreach: 1860ms (589725196)

基于试验台:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
static class Program
{
    static void Main()
    {
        List<int> list = new List<int>(6000000);
        Random rand = new Random(12345);
        for (int i = 0; i < 6000000; i++)
        {
            list.Add(rand.Next(5000));
        }
        int[] arr = list.ToArray();

        int chk = 0;
        Stopwatch watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            int len = list.Count;
            for (int i = 0; i < len; i++)
            {
                chk += list[i];
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("List/for: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        chk = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
            {
                chk += arr[i];
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("Array/for: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        chk = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            foreach (int i in list)
            {
                chk += i;
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("List/foreach: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        chk = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int rpt = 0; rpt < 100; rpt++)
        {
            foreach (int i in arr)
            {
                chk += i;
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("Array/foreach: {0}ms ({1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, chk);

        Console.ReadLine();
    }
}