Reputation: 9297
As I know if i declared a dictionary, i could call myDict.Clear() for reusing purpose.
Now if I declared a sb as a StingBuilder obj.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
How to reuse sb? thank you.
Acturally i need print all the possible conditions for mainDict.
one of sb expression like this(inclued in the code below)
sb.AppendFormat("{0}/{1}/{2}/{3}, {4}", pair1.Key, pair2.Key, pair3.Key, pair4.Key, pair4.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
If i declared a lot of StringBuilder objs, i still can't detect how many objs is enough for me. acturally the mainDict is very complex. The code above is a practice only. thanks.
Code updated at Jan 04.
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
class test
{
private static Dictionary<string, object> mainDict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
public static void Main()
{
Dictionary<string, object> aSubDict = new Dictionary<string,object>();
Dictionary<string, object> aSub1Dict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
Dictionary<string, object> aSub2Dict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
Dictionary<string, object> aSub3Dict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
Dictionary<string, object> aSub4Dict = new Dictionary<string, object>();
mainDict.Add("ADKey", aSubDict);
mainDict.Add("ASKey", "AValue");
aSubDict.Add("BDKey", aSub1Dict);
aSubDict.Add("BSKey", "BValue");
aSub1Dict.Add("CDKey", aSub2Dict);
aSub1Dict.Add("CSKey", "CValue");
aSub2Dict.Add("DDKey",aSub3Dict);
aSub2Dict.Add("DSKey", "DValue");
aSub3Dict.Add("EDKey", aSub4Dict);
aSub3Dict.Add("ESKey", "EValue");
aSub4Dict.Add("FKey", "FValue");
StringBuilder sb;
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> pair1 in mainDict)
// watch out for NullReferenceException
if (!ReferenceEquals(null, mainDict[pair1.Key]) && (mainDict[pair1.Key] is string))
{
Console.WriteLine("Key = {0}, Value = {1}", pair1.Key, pair1.Value);
sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendFormat("{0}, {1}", pair1.Key, pair1.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
}
// IDictionary is not the one from the Generics namespace, it is the one from the System.Collections namespace
else if (!ReferenceEquals(null, mainDict[pair1.Key]) && (mainDict[pair1.Key] is Dictionary<string, object>))
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> pair2 in (Dictionary<string, object>)pair1.Value)
if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair1.Value)[pair2.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair1.Value)[pair2.Key] is string))
{
Console.WriteLine("SubKey = {0}, Value = {1}", pair2.Key, pair2.Value);
sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendFormat("{0}/{1}, {2}", pair1.Key, pair2.Key, pair2.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
}
else if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair1.Value)[pair2.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair1.Value)[pair2.Key] is Dictionary<string, object>))
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> pair3 in (Dictionary<string, object>)pair2.Value)
if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair2.Value)[pair3.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair2.Value)[pair3.Key] is string))
{
Console.WriteLine("SubKey = {0}, Value = {1}", pair3.Key, pair3.Value);
sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendFormat("{0}/{1}/{2}, {3}", pair1.Key, pair2.Key, pair3.Key, pair3.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
}
else if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair2.Value)[pair3.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair2.Value)[pair3.Key] is Dictionary<string, object>))
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> pair4 in (Dictionary<string, object>)pair3.Value)
if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair3.Value)[pair4.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair3.Value)[pair4.Key] is string))
{
Console.WriteLine("SubKey = {0}, Value = {1}", pair4.Key, pair4.Value);
sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendFormat("{0}/{1}/{2}/{3}, {4}", pair1.Key, pair2.Key, pair3.Key, pair4.Key, pair4.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
}
else if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair3.Value)[pair4.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair3.Value)[pair4.Key] is Dictionary<string, object>))
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> pair5 in (Dictionary<string, object>)pair4.Value)
if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair4.Value)[pair5.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair4.Value)[pair5.Key] is string))
{
Console.WriteLine("SubKey = {0}, Value = {1}", pair5.Key, pair5.Value);
sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendFormat("{0}/{1}/{2}/{3}/{4}, {5}", pair1.Key, pair2.Key, pair3.Key, pair4.Key, pair5.Key, pair5.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
}
else if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair4.Value)[pair5.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair4.Value)[pair5.Key] is Dictionary<string, object>))
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, object> pair6 in (Dictionary<string, object>)pair5.Value)
if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair5.Value)[pair6.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair5.Value)[pair6.Key] is string))
{
Console.WriteLine("SubKey = {0}, Value = {1}", pair6.Key, pair6.Value);
sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.AppendFormat("{0}/{1}/{2}/{3}/{4}/{5}, {6}", pair1.Key, pair2.Key, pair3.Key, pair4.Key, pair5.Key, pair6.Key, pair6.Value);
Console.WriteLine(sb.ToString());
}
else if (!ReferenceEquals(null, ((Dictionary<string, object>)pair5.Value)[pair6.Key]) && (((Dictionary<string, object>)pair5.Value)[pair6.Key] is Dictionary<string, object>))
{
Console.WriteLine("sub Dict Found");
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
Output like this
SubKey = FKey, Value = FValue
ADKey/BDKey/CDKey/DDKey/EDKey/FKey, FValue
SubKey = ESKey, Value = EValue
ADKey/BDKey/CDKey/DDKey/ESKey, EValue
SubKey = DSKey, Value = DValue
ADKey/BDKey/CDKey/DSKey, DValue
SubKey = CSKey, Value = CValue
ADKey/BDKey/CSKey, CValue
SubKey = BSKey, Value = BValue
ADKey/BSKey, BValue
Key = ASKey, Value = AValue
ASKey, AValue
Upvotes: 7
Views: 6496
Reputation: 2138
I agree with Jon Skeet's technical explanation, but I felt it worthwhile, as a performance architect, to describe why this a relevant question and under which circumstances developers should consider employing such a tactic.
Many websites, or other types of applications, do not have to concern themselves with high performance. These are trivial in nature to develop because users are not stressing the .NET Runtime. However, if you know you are developing a high-throughput application or designing to future-proof your application for that likely outcome, things that are otherwise optional quickly become requirements.
i.e. Not everyone is developing a Netflix, but when you know you are, you should design (and test) with this in mind.
So, why bother doing this until you've measured and verified it's causing issues?
I do performance profiling for a living helping development teams overcome such obstacles. The answer is: Almost nobody is doing any measuring.
I can verify that StringBuilders show up in profile traces just as well as string allocations. In high performance scenarios this is definitely a valid concern. If you're going to rely on measuring, then you better actually measure.
If you are developing high throughput applications, do not get caught in a continuum fallacy that low-through application and high-through application design requirements are equivalent. They're not.
Here's a pattern I utilize in order to multi-thread string builders inside of a Singleton DI lifetime object with a method using the string builder.
[ThreadStatic]
static StringBuilder? _builder;
static StringBuilder builder => _builder.InitializeIsNull(() => new StringBuilder(1000));
/// <summary>
/// Uses pass-by-reference semantics of class to initialize and set reference.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
/// <param name="initialized"></param>
/// <param name="initialize"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
public static T InitializeIsNull<T>(this T? initialized, Func<T> initialize) where T : class
{
if (initialized == null)
{
initialized = initialize();
}
return initialized;
}
Upvotes: 2
Reputation: 1500065
You can set the Length
to 0. In .NET 4.0 there's a Clear()
method too. As the docs for Clear
state:
Clear is a convenience method that is equivalent to setting the Length property of the current instance to 0 (zero).
So it's not a big deal :)
I would personally avoid doing this unless you really need to though - I'd normally just create a new StringBuilder
. In my view that's simpler to understand - it makes it clearer that you really don't need anything from the previous object any more.
Do you have any particular reason to want to reuse the object? If it's for performance reasons, have you measured the performance and found this is a bottleneck? I suppose it could be significant if you have an instance with a very large capacity, and you want to avoid allocating it again... but that feels like a bit of an edge case to me.
(All of this applies for dictionaries as well, btw. I can't remember the last time I cleared a dictionary.)
Upvotes: 23
Reputation: 5958
I think rather then reusing an exting StringBuilder object, you should create a new StringBuilder object.
Upvotes: 0