简体   繁体   中英

What's better in regards to performance? type[,] or type[][]?

Is it more performant to have a bidimensional array ( type[,] ) or an array of arrays ( type[][] ) in C#?

Particularly for initial allocation and item access

Of course, if all else fails... test it! Following gives (in "Release", at the console):

Size 1000, Repeat 1000
    int[,] set: 3460
    int[,] get: 4036 (chk=1304808064)
    int[][] set: 2441
    int[][] get: 1283 (chk=1304808064)

So a jagged array is quicker, at least in this test. Interesting! However, it is a relatively small factor, so I would still stick with whichever describes my requirement better. Except for some specific (high CPU/processing) scenarios, readability / maintainability should trump a small performance gain. Up to you, though.

Note that this test assumes you access the array much more often than you create it, so I have not included timings for creation, where I would expect rectangular to be slightly quicker unless memory is highly fragmented.

using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
static class Program
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("First is just for JIT...");
        Test(10,10);
        Console.WriteLine("Real numbers...");
        Test(1000,1000);

        Console.ReadLine();
    }

    static void Test(int size, int repeat)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Size {0}, Repeat {1}", size, repeat);
        int[,] rect = new int[size, size];
        int[][] jagged = new int[size][];
        for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
        { // don't count this in the metrics...
            jagged[i] = new int[size];
        }
        Stopwatch watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int cycle = 0; cycle < repeat; cycle++)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
            {
                for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
                {
                    rect[i, j] = i * j;
                }
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("\tint[,] set: " + watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);

        int sum = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int cycle = 0; cycle < repeat; cycle++)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
            {
                for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
                {
                    sum += rect[i, j];
                }
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("\tint[,] get: {0} (chk={1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, sum);

        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int cycle = 0; cycle < repeat; cycle++)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
            {
                for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
                {
                    jagged[i][j] = i * j;
                }
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("\tint[][] set: " + watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);

        sum = 0;
        watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        for (int cycle = 0; cycle < repeat; cycle++)
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
            {
                for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
                {
                    sum += jagged[i][j];
                }
            }
        }
        watch.Stop();
        Console.WriteLine("\tint[][] get: {0} (chk={1})", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds, sum);
    }
}

I believe that [,] can allocate one contiguous chunk of memory, while [][] is N+1 chunk allocations where N is the size of the first dimension. So I would guess that [,] is faster on initial allocation.

Access is probably about the same, except that [][] would involve one extra dereference. Unless you're in an exceptionally tight loop it's probably a wash. Now, if you're doing something like image processing where you are referencing between rows rather than traversing row by row, locality of reference will play a big factor and [,] will probably edge out [][] depending on your cache size.

As Marc Gravell mentioned, usage is key to evaluating the performance...

It really depends. The MSDN Magazine article, Harness the Features of C# to Power Your Scientific Computing Projects , says this:

Although rectangular arrays are generally superior to jagged arrays in terms of structure and performance, there might be some cases where jagged arrays provide an optimal solution. If your application does not require arrays to be sorted, rearranged, partitioned, sparse, or large, then you might find jagged arrays to perform quite well.

type[,] will work faster. Not only because of less offset calculations. Mainly because of less constraint checking, less memory allocation and greater localization in memory. type[][] is not a single object -- it's 1 + N objects that must be allocated and can be away from each other.

The technical post webpages of this site follow the CC BY-SA 4.0 protocol. If you need to reprint, please indicate the site URL or the original address.Any question please contact:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM