I have a two dimensional array and I need to convert it to a List (same object). I don't want to do it with for or foreach loop that will take each element and add it to the List. Is there some other way to do it?
3 Answers
Well, you can make it use a "blit" sort of copy, although it does mean making an extra copy :(
double[] tmp = new double[array.GetLength(0) * array.GetLength(1)];
Buffer.BlockCopy(array, 0, tmp, 0, tmp.Length * sizeof(double));
List<double> list = new List<double>(tmp);
If you're happy with a single-dimensional array of course, just ignore the last line :)
Buffer.BlockCopy is implemented as a native method which I'd expect to use extremely efficient copying after validation. The List<T> constructor which accepts an IEnumerable<T> is optimized for the case where it implements IList<T>, as double[] does. It will create a backing array of the right size, and ask it to copy itself into that array. Hopefully that will use Buffer.BlockCopy or something similar too.
Here's a quick benchmark of the three approaches (for loop, Cast<double>().ToList(), and Buffer.BlockCopy):
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
double[,] source = new double[1000, 1000];
int iterations = 1000;
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
UsingCast(source);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("LINQ: {0}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
UsingForLoop(source);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("For loop: {0}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
UsingBlockCopy(source);
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Block copy: {0}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
static List<double> UsingCast(double[,] array)
{
return array.Cast<double>().ToList();
}
static List<double> UsingForLoop(double[,] array)
{
int width = array.GetLength(0);
int height = array.GetLength(1);
List<double> ret = new List<double>(width * height);
for (int i = 0; i < width; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < height; j++)
{
ret.Add(array[i, j]);
}
}
return ret;
}
static List<double> UsingBlockCopy(double[,] array)
{
double[] tmp = new double[array.GetLength(0) * array.GetLength(1)];
Buffer.BlockCopy(array, 0, tmp, 0, tmp.Length * sizeof(double));
List<double> list = new List<double>(tmp);
return list;
}
}
Results (times in milliseconds);
LINQ: 253463
For loop: 9563
Block copy: 8697
EDIT: Having changed the for loop to call array.GetLength() on each iteration, the for loop and the block copy take around the same time.
10 Comments
List<T> to just use the given array :( I think it's still likely to be faster than looping though.List<T> to use a certain array is that we could tell several lists to use the same array. Not sure how big a problem that's be in practice.To convert double[,] to List<double>, if you are looking for a one-liner, here goes
double[,] d = new double[,]
{
{1.0, 2.0},
{11.0, 22.0},
{111.0, 222.0},
{1111.0, 2222.0},
{11111.0, 22222.0}
};
List<double> lst = d.Cast<double>().ToList();
But, if you are looking for something efficient, I'd rather say you don't use this code.
Please follow either of the two answers mentioned below. Both are implementing much much better techniques.
11 Comments
double in the array... it'll perform poorly.for loop, which the OP explicitly wishes to avoid. Not to mention the title says "Fast".A for loop is the fastest way.
You may be able to do it with LINQ, but that will be slower. And while you don't write a loop yourself, under the hood there is still a loop.
- For a jagged array you can probably do something like
arr.SelectMany(x=>x).ToList(). OnLooks like the 2D array only implementsT[,]you can simply doarr.ToList()since theIEnumerable<T>ofT[,]returns all elements in the 2D array.IEnumerablebut notIEnumerable<T>so you need to insert aCast<double>like yetanothercoder suggested. That will make it even slower due to boxing.
The only thing that can make the code faster than the naive loop is calculating the number of elements and constructing the List with the correct capacity, so it doesn't need to grow.
If your array is rectangular you can obtain the size as width*height, with jagged arrays it can be harder.
int width=1000;
int height=3000;
double[,] arr=new double[width,height];
List<double> list=new List<double>(width*height);
int size1=arr.GetLength(1);
int size0=arr.GetLength(0);
for(int i=0;i<size0;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<size1;j++)
list.Add(arr[i,j]);
}
In theory it might be possible to use private reflection and unsafe code to make it a bit faster doing a raw memory copy. But I strongly advice against that.
7 Comments
for loop so I can benchmark it against my Buffer.BlockCopy approach? I'd expect mine to be faster, but I want to make sure I'm testing the right thing...GetLength on every iteration... but in my tests, Buffer.BlockCopy is still a bit faster.
T[,]) or jagged(T[][])?