你可以使用Union

obj2 = obj1.Union(obj1).ToList();

使用HashSet可以很容易地做到这一点。

List<int> listWithDuplicates = new List<int> { 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
HashSet<int> hashWithoutDuplicates = new HashSet<int> ( listWithDuplicates );
List<int> listWithoutDuplicates = hashWithoutDuplicates.ToList();

这里有一个简单的解决方案，不需要任何难读的LINQ或任何列表的预先排序。

   private static void CheckForDuplicateItems(List<string> items)
    {
        if (items == null ||
            items.Count == 0)
            return;

        for (int outerIndex = 0; outerIndex < items.Count; outerIndex++)
        {
            for (int innerIndex = 0; innerIndex < items.Count; innerIndex++)
            {
                if (innerIndex == outerIndex) continue;
                if (items[outerIndex].Equals(items[innerIndex]))
                {
                    // Duplicate Found
                }
            }
        }
    }

有很多方法可以解决列表中的重复问题，下面是其中之一:

List<Container> containerList = LoadContainer();//Assume it has duplicates
List<Container> filteredList = new  List<Container>();
foreach (var container in containerList)
{ 
  Container duplicateContainer = containerList.Find(delegate(Container checkContainer)
  { return (checkContainer.UniqueId == container.UniqueId); });
   //Assume 'UniqueId' is the property of the Container class on which u r making a search

    if(!containerList.Contains(duplicateContainer) //Add object when not found in the new class object
      {
        filteredList.Add(container);
       }
  }

干杯 拉维Ganesan

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。