| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet performance : Better coding
A) list_of_strings[0] == ""
[quoted text, click to view]
jsh02_nova wrote: > Which code is really better in term of performance, A or B? > A) list_of_strings[0] == "" > B) list_of_strings[0].Length.Equals(0) The difference is negligible. Do whatever is most readable or follows convention for your team. In theory, checking the length should be quicker, but some say that checking against String.Empty is quicker too.
[quoted text, click to view]
"jsh02_nova" <jsh02nova@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:F69C0435-D151-4BDA-A109-341FB6650A9A@microsoft.com... > Which code is really better in term of performance, A or B? > A) list_of_strings[0] == "" > B) list_of_strings[0].Length.Equals(0) C) list_of_strings[0].Length == 0 :) A string holds its length as part of its structure which is why quering the length carries no overhead, unlike comparing it to another string. However as has been said, comparing two empty strings probably isn't any slower in reality.
[quoted text, click to view]
Aidy <noemail@noemail.xxx> wrote: > "jsh02_nova" <jsh02nova@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:F69C0435-D151-4BDA-A109-341FB6650A9A@microsoft.com... > > Which code is really better in term of performance, A or B? > > A) list_of_strings[0] == "" > > B) list_of_strings[0].Length.Equals(0) > > C) list_of_strings[0].Length == 0 > > :) > > A string holds its length as part of its structure which is why quering the > length carries no overhead, unlike comparing it to another string. However > as has been said, comparing two empty strings probably isn't any slower in > reality. Especially as the first thing a string equality comparison is likely to do is compare the lengths. Personally I find if (x=="") easier to read - it conveys the intention of "is x an empty string" better (to me) than if (x.Length==0) Very much a personal preference thing - but I'd make the choice based on readability rather than performance. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
[quoted text, click to view]
> Especially as the first thing a string equality comparison is likely to > do is compare the lengths. > > Personally I find > if (x=="") > easier to read - it conveys the intention of "is x an empty string" > better (to me) than > if (x.Length==0) > > Very much a personal preference thing - but I'd make the choice based > on readability rather than performance. I see where you're coming from, but I haven't seen the "==" op code so don't know if it has a special case for comparing empty strings. I don't know if it says "both strings are 0 length so return true" or if it initiates a "foreach" loop anyway. Even if it compares both string lengths to see if they are 0 and return true, that is still two comparisons. Whereas I know that just checking if the length is 0 is only one comparison. Another reason I dislike comparison with an empty string is that some people (read: other developers) don't appreciate that you get the odd stray spaces and that "" != " ". The fact that you are checking a zero length string makes it more obvious (to me anyway) that rogue spaces are not to be tolerated.
[quoted text, click to view]
Aidy <noemail@noemail.xxx> wrote: > > Very much a personal preference thing - but I'd make the choice based > > on readability rather than performance. > > I see where you're coming from, but I haven't seen the "==" op code so don't > know if it has a special case for comparing empty strings. I don't know if > it says "both strings are 0 length so return true" or if it initiates a > "foreach" loop anyway. Even if it compares both string lengths to see if > they are 0 and return true, that is still two comparisons. Whereas I know > that just checking if the length is 0 is only one comparison. Show me *any* production application where that makes any significant difference, and I'll buy you several pints. It's really not worth bothering about. [quoted text, click to view] > Another reason I dislike comparison with an empty string is that some people > (read: other developers) don't appreciate that you get the odd stray spaces > and that "" != " ". The fact that you are checking a zero length string > makes it more obvious (to me anyway) that rogue spaces are not to be > tolerated. Okay, it reads pretty clearly to me - but this is where the personal preference business kicks in. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
Is that correct? string interning isn't on by default is it?
-- -- Regards, Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET] [Shameless Author plug] The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99 [quoted text, click to view] "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22449d40b4263b94b1a@msnews.microsoft.com... > Norbert Unterberg <nunterberg@newsgroups.nospam> wrote: >> jsh02_nova schrieb: >> > Which code is really better in term of performance, A or B? >> > A) list_of_strings[0] == "" >> > B) list_of_strings[0].Length.Equals(0) >> >> Depending on what exactly you want to check, you could also use >> String.IsNullOrEmpty(list_of_strings[0]) >> or >> list_of_strings[0] == string.Empty >> >> This avoids constructing a temporary string object that holds the emtpy >> string for comparison. > > There would be no temporary string object. There'd be a single interned > empty string for every occurrence of the string literal "" in your > AppDomain. > > -- > Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet > World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
I think Fx Cop says to use .Length
I like then Length myself. Schneider [quoted text, click to view] "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2244b8c84c8957e2b20@msnews.microsoft.com... <"Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc>> wrote: > Is that correct? string interning isn't on by default is it? For C#, it's guaranteed by the language specification. Section 2.4.4.5 (unified C# 3.0 spec): <quote> Each string literal does not necessarily result in a new string instance. When two or more string literals that are equivalent according to the string equality operator (§7.9.7) appear in the same program, these string literals refer to the same string instance. </quote> That also includes "x"+"y" being the same reference as "xy" btw. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
If I remember correctly all unique strings are cache, at what level I'm not
sure... Schneider [quoted text, click to view] "schneider" <eschneider.news.ms@starkinvestments.com> wrote in message news:uLh1akfhIHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >I think Fx Cop says to use .Length > > I like then Length myself. > > Schneider > > > "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.2244b8c84c8957e2b20@msnews.microsoft.com... > <"Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc>> wrote: >> Is that correct? string interning isn't on by default is it? > > For C#, it's guaranteed by the language specification. > > Section 2.4.4.5 (unified C# 3.0 spec): > > <quote> > Each string literal does not necessarily result in a new string > instance. When two or more string literals that are equivalent > according to the string equality operator (§7.9.7) appear in the same > program, these string literals refer to the same string instance. > </quote> > > That also includes "x"+"y" being the same reference as "xy" btw. > > -- > Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet > World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk >
[quoted text, click to view]
> Show me *any* production application where that makes any significant > difference, and I'll buy you several pints. It's really not worth > bothering about. I've admitted it doesn't make a difference, it just comes down to personal choice. However it seems you're not too keen when other's personal choice differs from your personal choice!
[quoted text, click to view]
Norbert Unterberg <nunterberg@newsgroups.nospam> wrote: > jsh02_nova schrieb: > > Which code is really better in term of performance, A or B? > > A) list_of_strings[0] == "" > > B) list_of_strings[0].Length.Equals(0) > > Depending on what exactly you want to check, you could also use > String.IsNullOrEmpty(list_of_strings[0]) > or > list_of_strings[0] == string.Empty > > This avoids constructing a temporary string object that holds the emtpy > string for comparison. There would be no temporary string object. There'd be a single interned empty string for every occurrence of the string literal "" in your AppDomain. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
[quoted text, click to view]
Aidy <noemail@noemail.xxx> wrote: > > Show me *any* production application where that makes any significant > > difference, and I'll buy you several pints. It's really not worth > > bothering about. > > I've admitted it doesn't make a difference, it just comes down to personal > choice. However it seems you're not too keen when other's personal choice > differs from your personal choice! Not at all - I'm perfectly happy if people choose to use a different approach based on their personal preference due to differing ideas of readability. If people choose to use one approach based on *performance* however, they're using a completely bogus reason - and I'll call them on that. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
jsh02_nova schrieb:
[quoted text, click to view] > Which code is really better in term of performance, A or B? > A) list_of_strings[0] == "" > B) list_of_strings[0].Length.Equals(0) Depending on what exactly you want to check, you could also use String.IsNullOrEmpty(list_of_strings[0]) or list_of_strings[0] == string.Empty This avoids constructing a temporary string object that holds the emtpy string for comparison.
Correct, I was under the impression it was automatic. Seems there is some GC
issues related to them also. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.string.intern.aspx [quoted text, click to view] "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2244e1997b5e445cb25@msnews.microsoft.com... > schneider <eschneider.news.ms@starkinvestments.com> wrote: >> If I remember correctly all unique strings are cache, at what level I'm >> not >> sure... > > No, only those which are interned - which includes all string literals. > > -- > Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet > World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
[quoted text, click to view]
<"Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc>> wrote: > Is that correct? string interning isn't on by default is it? For C#, it's guaranteed by the language specification. Section 2.4.4.5 (unified C# 3.0 spec): <quote> Each string literal does not necessarily result in a new string=20 instance. When two or more string literals that are equivalent=20 according to the string equality operator (=A77.9.7) appear in the same=20 program, these string literals refer to the same string instance.=20 </quote> That also includes "x"+"y" being the same reference as "xy" btw. --=20 Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
[quoted text, click to view]
schneider <eschneider.news.ms@starkinvestments.com> wrote: > If I remember correctly all unique strings are cache, at what level I'm not > sure... No, only those which are interned - which includes all string literals. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
[quoted text, click to view]
schneider <eschneider.news.ms@starkinvestments.com> wrote: > Correct, I was under the impression it was automatic. Seems there is some GC > issues related to them also. > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.string.intern.aspx Automatically interning *every* string to ever be created would be a memory nightmare. Basically it would make it impossible for an application to stay up for any significant length of time, if it was doing any string processing. -- Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
uh huh. i had it backward. that jogged my memory.
-- -- Regards, Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET] [Shameless Author plug] The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99 [quoted text, click to view] "Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2244b8c84c8957e2b20@msnews.microsoft.com... > <"Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc>> wrote: >> Is that correct? string interning isn't on by default is it? > > For C#, it's guaranteed by the language specification. > > Section 2.4.4.5 (unified C# 3.0 spec): > > <quote> > Each string literal does not necessarily result in a new string > instance. When two or more string literals that are equivalent > according to the string equality operator (§7.9.7) appear in the same > program, these string literals refer to the same string instance. > </quote> > > That also includes "x"+"y" being the same reference as "xy" btw. > > -- > Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> > http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet > World class .NET training in the UK: http://iterativetraining.co.uk
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |