可能更简单的方法是确保没有将重复项添加到列表中。

if(items.IndexOf(new_item) < 0) 
    items.add(new_item)

在Java中(我认为c#或多或少是相同的):

list = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list))

如果你真的想改变原来的列表:

List<T> noDupes = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list));
list.clear();
list.addAll(noDupes);

为了保持顺序，只需将HashSet替换为LinkedHashSet。

也许您应该考虑使用HashSet。

从MSDN链接:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;

class Program
{
    static void Main()
    {
        HashSet<int> evenNumbers = new HashSet<int>();
        HashSet<int> oddNumbers = new HashSet<int>();

        for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
        {
            // Populate numbers with just even numbers.
            evenNumbers.Add(i * 2);

            // Populate oddNumbers with just odd numbers.
            oddNumbers.Add((i * 2) + 1);
        }

        Console.Write("evenNumbers contains {0} elements: ", evenNumbers.Count);
        DisplaySet(evenNumbers);

        Console.Write("oddNumbers contains {0} elements: ", oddNumbers.Count);
        DisplaySet(oddNumbers);

        // Create a new HashSet populated with even numbers.
        HashSet<int> numbers = new HashSet<int>(evenNumbers);
        Console.WriteLine("numbers UnionWith oddNumbers...");
        numbers.UnionWith(oddNumbers);

        Console.Write("numbers contains {0} elements: ", numbers.Count);
        DisplaySet(numbers);
    }

    private static void DisplaySet(HashSet<int> set)
    {
        Console.Write("{");
        foreach (int i in set)
        {
            Console.Write(" {0}", i);
        }
        Console.WriteLine(" }");
    }
}

/* This example produces output similar to the following:
 * evenNumbers contains 5 elements: { 0 2 4 6 8 }
 * oddNumbers contains 5 elements: { 1 3 5 7 9 }
 * numbers UnionWith oddNumbers...
 * numbers contains 10 elements: { 0 2 4 6 8 1 3 5 7 9 }
 */

所有的答案要么复制列表，要么创建一个新列表，要么使用慢函数，要么就是慢得令人痛苦。

据我所知，这是我所知道的最快和最便宜的方法(同时，还得到了一个非常有经验的实时物理优化程序员的支持)。

// Duplicates will be noticed after a sort O(nLogn)
list.Sort();

// Store the current and last items. Current item declaration is not really needed, and probably optimized by the compiler, but in case it's not...
int lastItem = -1;
int currItem = -1;

int size = list.Count;

// Store the index pointing to the last item we want to keep in the list
int last = size - 1;

// Travel the items from last to first O(n)
for (int i = last; i >= 0; --i)
{
    currItem = list[i];

    // If this item was the same as the previous one, we don't want it
    if (currItem == lastItem)
    {
        // Overwrite last in current place. It is a swap but we don't need the last
       list[i] = list[last];

        // Reduce the last index, we don't want that one anymore
        last--;
    }

    // A new item, we store it and continue
    else
        lastItem = currItem;
}

// We now have an unsorted list with the duplicates at the end.

// Remove the last items just once
list.RemoveRange(last + 1, size - last - 1);

// Sort again O(n logn)
list.Sort();

最终成本为:

nlogn + n + nlogn = n + 2nlogn = O(nlogn)非常漂亮。

关于RemoveRange注意事项: 由于我们不能设置列表的计数并避免使用Remove函数，我不知道这个操作的确切速度，但我猜这是最快的方法。

这对我很管用。简单地使用

List<Type> liIDs = liIDs.Distinct().ToList<Type>();

将“类型”替换为所需的类型，例如int。

正如kronoz在. net 3.5中所说，您可以使用Distinct()。

在。net 2中，你可以模仿它:

public IEnumerable<T> DedupCollection<T> (IEnumerable<T> input) 
{
    var passedValues = new HashSet<T>();

    // Relatively simple dupe check alg used as example
    foreach(T item in input)
        if(passedValues.Add(item)) // True if item is new
            yield return item;
}

这可用于删除任何集合，并将以原始顺序返回值。

通常，过滤一个集合(Distinct()和这个示例都是这样做的)比从其中删除项要快得多。