We Keep Coding

Why is bubble sort running faster than selection sort?

I am working on a project that compares the time bubble and selection sort take. I made two separate programs and combined them into one and now bubble sort is running much faster than selection sort. I checked to make sure that the code wasn't just giving me 0s because of some conversion error and was running as intended. I am using System.Diagnostics; to measure the time. I also checked that the machine was not the problem, I ran it on Replit and got similar results.
{
class Program
{
public static int s1 = 0;
public static int s2 = 0;
static decimal bubblesort(int[] arr1)
{
int n = arr1.Length;
var sw1 = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < n - i - 1; j++)
{
if (arr1[j] > arr1[j + 1])
{
int tmp = arr1[j];
// swap tmp and arr[i] int tmp = arr[j];
arr1[j] = arr1[j + 1];
arr1[j + 1] = tmp;
s1++;
}
}
}
sw1.Stop();
// Console.WriteLine(sw1.ElapsedMilliseconds);
decimal a = Convert.ToDecimal(sw1.ElapsedMilliseconds);
return a;
}
static decimal selectionsort(int[] arr2)
{
int n = arr2.Length;
var sw1 = Stopwatch.StartNew();
// for (int e = 0; e < 1000; e++)
// {
for (int x = 0; x < arr2.Length - 1; x++)
{
int minPos = x;
for (int y = x + 1; y < arr2.Length; y++)
{
if (arr2[y] < arr2[minPos])
minPos = y;
}
if (x != minPos && minPos < arr2.Length)
{
int temp = arr2[minPos];
arr2[minPos] = arr2[x];
arr2[x] = temp;
s2++;
}
}
// }
sw1.Stop();
// Console.WriteLine(sw1.ElapsedMilliseconds);
decimal a = Convert.ToDecimal(sw1.ElapsedMilliseconds);
return a;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Enter the size of n");
int n = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
Random rnd = new System.Random();
decimal bs = 0M;
decimal ss = 0M;
int s = 0;
int[] arr1 = new int[n];
int tx = 1000; //tx is a variable that I can use to adjust sample size
decimal tm = Convert.ToDecimal(tx);
for (int i = 0; i < tx; i++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < n; a++)
{
arr1[a] = rnd.Next(0, 1000000);
}
ss += selectionsort(arr1);
bs += bubblesort(arr1);
}
bs = bs / tm;
ss = ss / tm;
Console.WriteLine("Bubble Sort took " + bs + " miliseconds");
Console.WriteLine("Selection Sort took " + ss + " miliseconds");
}
}
}
What is going on? What is causing bubble sort to be fast or what is slowing down Selection sort? How can I fix this?
I found that the problem was that the Selection Sort was looping 1000 times per method run in addition to the 1000 runs for sample size, causing the method to perform significantly worse than bubble sort. Thank you guys for help and thank you TheGeneral for showing me the benchmarking tools. Also, the array that was given as a parameter was a copy instead of a reference, as running through the loop manually showed me that the bubble sort was doing it's job and not sorting an already sorted array.

To solve your initial problem you just need to copy your arrays, you can do this easily with ToArray():
Creates an array from a IEnumerable.
ss += selectionsort(arr1.ToArray());
bs += bubblesort(arr1.ToArray());
However let's learn how to do a more reliable benchmark with BenchmarkDotNet:
BenchmarkDotNet Nuget
Official Documentation
Given
public class Sort
{
public static void BubbleSort(int[] arr1)
{
int n = arr1.Length;
for (int i = 0; i < n - 1; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < n - i - 1; j++)
{
if (arr1[j] > arr1[j + 1])
{
int tmp = arr1[j];
// swap tmp and arr[i] int tmp = arr[j];
arr1[j] = arr1[j + 1];
arr1[j + 1] = tmp;
}
}
}
}
public static void SelectionSort(int[] arr2)
{
int n = arr2.Length;
for (int x = 0; x < arr2.Length - 1; x++)
{
int minPos = x;
for (int y = x + 1; y < arr2.Length; y++)
{
if (arr2[y] < arr2[minPos])
minPos = y;
}
if (x != minPos && minPos < arr2.Length)
{
int temp = arr2[minPos];
arr2[minPos] = arr2[x];
arr2[x] = temp;
}
}
}
}
Benchmark code
[SimpleJob(RuntimeMoniker.Net50)]
[MemoryDiagnoser()]
public class SortBenchmark
{
private int[] data;
[Params(100, 1000)]
public int N;
[GlobalSetup]
public void Setup()
{
var r = new Random(42);
data = Enumerable
.Repeat(0, N)
.Select(i => r.Next(0, N))
.ToArray();
}
[Benchmark]
public void Bubble() => Sort.BubbleSort(data.ToArray());
[Benchmark]
public void Selection() => Sort.SelectionSort(data.ToArray());
}
Usage
static void Main(string[] args)
{
BenchmarkRunner.Run<SortBenchmark>();
}
Results
Method
N
Mean
Error
StdDev
Bubble
100
8.553 us
0.0753 us
0.0704 us
Selection
100
4.757 us
0.0247 us
0.0231 us
Bubble
1000
657.760 us
7.2581 us
6.7893 us
Selection
1000
300.395 us
2.3302 us
2.1796 us
Summary
What have we learnt? Your bubble sort code is slower ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It looks like you're passing in the sorted array into Bubble Sort. Because arrays are passed by reference, the sort that you're doing on the array is editing the same contents of the array that will be eventually passed into bubble sort.
Make a second array and pass the second array into bubble sort.

Optimizing my image search routine

My routine is as follows (the SpeedyBitmap class just locks each bitmap for faster pixel data access):
private static bool TestRange(int number, int lower, int upper) {
return number >= lower && number <= upper;
}
public static List<Point> Search(Bitmap toSearch, Bitmap toFind, double percentMatch = 0.85, byte rTol = 2, byte gTol = 2, byte bTol = 2) {
List<Point> points = new List<Point>();
Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();
int findArea = toFind.Width * toFind.Height;
int allowedMismatches = findArea - (int)(findArea * percentMatch);
int mismatches = 0;
using (SpeedyBitmap speedySearch = new SpeedyBitmap(toSearch)) {
using (SpeedyBitmap speedyFind = new SpeedyBitmap(toFind)) {
for (int i = 0; i < speedySearch.Height - speedyFind.Height + 1; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < speedySearch.Width - speedyFind.Width + 1; j++) {
for (int k = 0; k < speedyFind.Height; k++) {
for (int l = 0; l < speedyFind.Width; l++) {
Color searchColor = speedySearch[j + l, i + k];
Color findColor = speedyFind[l, k];
if (!TestRange(searchColor.R, findColor.R - rTol, findColor.R + rTol) ||
!TestRange(searchColor.G, findColor.G - gTol, findColor.G + gTol) ||
!TestRange(searchColor.B, findColor.B - bTol, findColor.B + bTol)) {
mismatches++;
if (mismatches > allowedMismatches) {
mismatches = 0;
goto notFound;
}
}
}
}
points.Add(new Point(j, i));
continue;
notFound:
;
}
}
}
}
Console.WriteLine(stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
return points;
}
Searching a moderately sized image (1000x1000) takes over 20 seconds. Removing the percent match takes it down to a few hundred milliseconds, so I think I've established where the major bottleneck is.
How can I make this run faster? Perhaps I could flatten the two-dimensional arrays down to one-dimensional arrays and then apply some sort of sequence check on the two to possibly match up the longest sequence of where the toFind bitmap data appears with the respective tolerances and match percent. If this would be a good solution, how would I begin to implement it?

Reorder digits in integer using C#

I want to ask how I can reorder the digits in an Int32 so they result in the biggest possible number.
Here is an example which visualizes what I am trying to do:
2927466 -> 9766422
12492771 -> 97742211
I want to perform the ordering of the digits without using the System.Linq namespace and without converting the integer into a string value.
This is what I got so far:
public static int ReorderInt32Digits(int v)
{
int n = Math.Abs(v);
int l = ((int)Math.Log10(n > 0 ? n : 1)) + 1;
int[] d = new int[l];
for (int i = 0; i < l; i++)
{
d[(l - i) - 1] = n % 10;
n /= 10;
}
if (v < 0)
d[0] *= -1;
Array.Sort(d);
Array.Reverse(d);
int h = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < d.Length; i++)
{
int index = d.Length - i - 1;
h += ((int)Math.Pow(10, index)) * d[i];
}
return h;
}
This algorithm works flawlessly but I think it is not very efficient.
I would like to know if there is a way to do the same thing more efficiently and how I could improve my algorithm.

You can use this code:
var digit = 2927466;
String.Join("", digit.ToString().ToCharArray().OrderBy(x => x));
Or
var res = String.Join("", digit.ToString().ToCharArray().OrderByDescending(x => x) );

Not that my answer may or may not be more "efficient", but when I read your code you calculated how many digits there are in your number so you can determine how large to make your array, and then you calculated how to turn your array back into a sorted integer.
It would seem to me that you would want to write your own code that did the sorting part without using built in functionality, which is what my sample does. Plus, I've added the ability to sort in ascending or descending order, which is easy to add in your code too.
UPDATED
The original algorithm sorted the digits, now it sorts the digits so that the end result is the largest or smallest depending on the second parameter passed in. However, when dealing with a negative number the second parameter is treated as opposite.
using System;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
int number1 = 2927466;
int number2 = 12492771;
int number3 = -39284925;
Console.WriteLine(OrderDigits(number1, false));
Console.WriteLine(OrderDigits(number2, true));
Console.WriteLine(OrderDigits(number3, false));
}
private static int OrderDigits(int number, bool asc)
{
// Extract each digit into an array
int[] digits = new int[(int)Math.Floor(Math.Log10(Math.Abs(number)) + 1)];
for (int i = 0; i < digits.Length; i++)
{
digits[i] = number % 10;
number /= 10;
}
// Order the digits
for (int i = 0; i < digits.Length; i++)
{
for (int j = i + 1; j < digits.Length; j++)
{
if ((!asc && digits[j] > digits[i]) ||
(asc && digits[j] < digits[i]))
{
int temp = digits[i];
digits[i] = digits[j];
digits[j] = temp;
}
}
}
// Turn the array of digits back into an integer
int result = 0;
for (int i = digits.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
{
result += digits[i] * (int)Math.Pow(10, digits.Length - 1 - i);
}
return result;
}
}
Results:
9766422
11224779
-22345899
See working example here... https://dotnetfiddle.net/RWA4XV

public static int ReorderInt32Digits(int v)
{
var nums = Math.Abs(v).ToString().ToCharArray();
Array.Sort(nums);
bool neg = (v < 0);
if(!neg)
{
Array.Reverse(nums);
}
return int.Parse(new string(nums)) * (neg ? -1 : 1);
}

This code fragment below extracts the digits from variable v. You can modify it to store the digits in an array and sort/reverse.
int v = 2345;
while (v > 0) {
int digit = v % 10;
v = v / 10;
Console.WriteLine(digit);
}
You can use similar logic to reconstruct the number from (sorted) digits: Multiply by 10 and add next digit.

I'm posting this second answer because I think I got the most efficient algorithm of all (thanks for the help Atul) :)
void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine (ReorderInt32Digits2(2927466));
Console.WriteLine (ReorderInt32Digits2(12492771));
Console.WriteLine (ReorderInt32Digits2(-1024));
}
public static int ReorderInt32Digits2(int v)
{
bool neg = (v < 0);
int mult = neg ? -1 : 1;
int result = 0;
var counts = GetDigitCounts(v);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int idx = neg ? 9 - i : i;
for (int j = 0; j < counts[idx]; j++)
{
result += idx * mult;
mult *= 10;
}
}
return result;
}
// From Atul Sikaria's answer
public static int[] GetDigitCounts(int n)
{
int v = Math.Abs(n);
var result = new int[10];
while (v > 0) {
int digit = v % 10;
v = v / 10;
result[digit]++;
}
return result;
}

0-1 Knapsack algorithm

Is the following 0-1 Knapsack problem solvable:
'float' positive values and
'float' weights (can be positive or negative)
'float' capacity of the knapsack > 0
I have on average < 10 items, so I'm thinking of using a brute force implementation. However, I was wondering if there is a better way of doing it.

This is a relatively simple binary program.
I'd suggest brute force with pruning. If at any time you exceed the allowable weight, you don't need to try combinations of additional items, you can discard the whole tree.
Oh wait, you have negative weights? Include all negative weights always, then proceed as above for the positive weights. Or do the negative weight items also have negative value?
Include all negative weight items with positive value. Exclude all items with positive weight and negative value.
For negative weight items with negative value, subtract their weight (increasing the knapsack capavity) and use a pseudo-item which represents not taking that item. The pseudo-item will have positive weight and value. Proceed by brute force with pruning.
class Knapsack
{
double bestValue;
bool[] bestItems;
double[] itemValues;
double[] itemWeights;
double weightLimit;
void SolveRecursive( bool[] chosen, int depth, double currentWeight, double currentValue, double remainingValue )
{
if (currentWeight > weightLimit) return;
if (currentValue + remainingValue < bestValue) return;
if (depth == chosen.Length) {
bestValue = currentValue;
System.Array.Copy(chosen, bestItems, chosen.Length);
return;
}
remainingValue -= itemValues[depth];
chosen[depth] = false;
SolveRecursive(chosen, depth+1, currentWeight, currentValue, remainingValue);
chosen[depth] = true;
currentWeight += itemWeights[depth];
currentValue += itemValues[depth];
SolveRecursive(chosen, depth+1, currentWeight, currentValue, remainingValue);
}
public bool[] Solve()
{
var chosen = new bool[itemWeights.Length];
bestItems = new bool[itemWeights.Length];
bestValue = 0.0;
double totalValue = 0.0;
foreach (var v in itemValues) totalValue += v;
SolveRecursive(chosen, 0, 0.0, 0.0, totalValue);
return bestItems;
}
}

Yeah, brute force it. This is an NP-Complete problem, but that shouldn't matter because you will have less than 10 items. Brute forcing won't be problematic.
var size = 10;
var capacity = 0;
var permutations = 1024;
var repeat = 10000;
// Generate items
float[] items = new float[size];
float[] weights = new float[size];
Random rand = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
items[i] = (float)rand.NextDouble();
weights[i] = (float)rand.NextDouble();
if (rand.Next(2) == 1)
{
weights[i] *= -1;
}
}
// solution
int bestPosition= -1;
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
// for perf testing
//for (int r = 0; r < repeat; r++)
{
var bestValue = 0d;
// solve
for (int i = 0; i < permutations; i++)
{
var total = 0d;
var weight = 0d;
for (int j = 0; j < size; j++)
{
if (((i >> j) & 1) == 1)
{
total += items[j];
weight += weights[j];
}
}
if (weight <= capacity && total > bestValue)
{
bestPosition = i;
bestValue = total;
}
}
}
sw.Stop();
sw.Elapsed.ToString();

If you can only have positive values then every item with a negative weight must go in.
Then I guess you could calculate Value/Weight Ratio, and brute force the remaining combinations based on that order, once you get one that fits you can skip the rest.
The problem may be that the grading and sorting is actually more expensive than just doing all the calculations.
There will obviously be a different breakeven point based on the size and distribution of the set.

public class KnapSackSolver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int N = Integer.parseInt(args[0]); // number of items
int W = Integer.parseInt(args[1]); // maximum weight of knapsack
int[] profit = new int[N + 1];
int[] weight = new int[N + 1];
// generate random instance, items 1..N
for (int n = 1; n <= N; n++) {
profit[n] = (int) (Math.random() * 1000);
weight[n] = (int) (Math.random() * W);
}
// opt[n][w] = max profit of packing items 1..n with weight limit w
// sol[n][w] = does opt solution to pack items 1..n with weight limit w
// include item n?
int[][] opt = new int[N + 1][W + 1];
boolean[][] sol = new boolean[N + 1][W + 1];
for (int n = 1; n <= N; n++) {
for (int w = 1; w <= W; w++) {
// don't take item n
int option1 = opt[n - 1][w];
// take item n
int option2 = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
if (weight[n] <= w)
option2 = profit[n] + opt[n - 1][w - weight[n]];
// select better of two options
opt[n][w] = Math.max(option1, option2);
sol[n][w] = (option2 > option1);
}
}
// determine which items to take
boolean[] take = new boolean[N + 1];
for (int n = N, w = W; n > 0; n--) {
if (sol[n][w]) {
take[n] = true;
w = w - weight[n];
} else {
take[n] = false;
}
}
// print results
System.out.println("item" + "\t" + "profit" + "\t" + "weight" + "\t"
+ "take");
for (int n = 1; n <= N; n++) {
System.out.println(n + "\t" + profit[n] + "\t" + weight[n] + "\t"
+ take[n]);
}
}
}

import java.util.*;
class Main{
static int max(inta,int b)
{
if(a>b)
return a;
else
return b;
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
int n,i,cap,j,t=2,w;
Scanner sc=new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter the number of values ");
n=sc.nextInt();
int solution[]=new int[n];
System.out.println("Enter the capacity of the knapsack :- ");
cap=sc.nextInt();
int v[]=new int[n+1];
int wt[]=new int[n+1];
System.out.println("Enter the values ");
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
v[i]=sc.nextInt();
}
System.out.println("Enter the weights ");
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
wt[i]=sc.nextInt();
}
int knapsack[][]=new int[n+2][cap+1];
for(i=1;i<n+2;i++)
{
for(j=1;j<n+1;j++)
{
knapsack[i][j]=0;
}
}
/*for(i=1;i<n+2;i++)
{
for(j=wt[1]+1;j<cap+2;j++)
{
knapsack[i][j]=v[1];
}
}*/
int k;
for(i=1;i<n+1;i++)
{
for(j=1;j<cap+1;j++)
{
/*if(i==1||j==1)
{
knapsack[i][j]=0;
}*/
if(wt[i]>j)
{
knapsack[i][j]=knapsack[i-1][j];
}
else
{
knapsack[i][j]=max(knapsack[i-1][j],v[i]+knapsack[i-1][j-wt[i]]);
}
}
}
//for displaying the knapsack
for(i=0;i<n+1;i++)
{
for(j=0;j<cap+1;j++)
{
System.out.print(knapsack[i][j]+" ");
}
System.out.print("\n");
}
w=cap;k=n-1;
j=cap;
for(i=n;i>0;i--)
{
if(knapsack[i][j]!=knapsack[i-1][j])
{
j=w-wt[i];
w=j;
solution[k]=1;
System.out.println("k="+k);
k--;
}
else
{
solution[k]=0;
k--;
}
}
System.out.println("Solution for given knapsack is :- ");
for(i=0;i<n;i++)
{
System.out.print(solution[i]+", ");
}
System.out.print(" => "+knapsack[n][cap]);
}
}

This can be solved using Dynamic Programming. Below code can help you solve the 0/1 Knapsack problem using Dynamic Programming.
internal class knapsackProblem
{
private int[] weight;
private int[] profit;
private int capacity;
private int itemCount;
private int[,] data;
internal void GetMaxProfit()
{
ItemDetails();
data = new int[itemCount, capacity + 1];
for (int i = 1; i < itemCount; i++)
{
for (int j = 1; j < capacity + 1; j++)
{
int q = j - weight[i] >= 0 ? data[i - 1, j - weight[i]] + profit[i] : 0;
if (data[i - 1, j] > q)
{
data[i, j] = data[i - 1, j];
}
else
{
data[i, j] = q;
}
}
}
Console.WriteLine($"\nMax profit can be made : {data[itemCount-1, capacity]}");
IncludedItems();
}
private void ItemDetails()
{
Console.Write("\nEnter the count of items to be inserted : ");
itemCount = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine()) + 1;
Console.WriteLine();
weight = new int[itemCount];
profit = new int[itemCount];
for (int i = 1; i < itemCount; i++)
{
Console.Write($"Enter weight of item {i} : ");
weight[i] = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
Console.Write($"Enter the profit on the item {i} : ");
profit[i] = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
Console.WriteLine();
}
Console.Write("\nEnter the capacity of the knapsack : ");
capacity = Convert.ToInt32(Console.ReadLine());
}
private void IncludedItems()
{
int i = itemCount - 1;
int j = capacity;
while(i > 0)
{
if(data[i, j] == data[i - 1, j])
{
Console.WriteLine($"Item {i} : Not included");
i--;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine($"Item {i} : Included");
j = j - weight[i];
i--;
}
}
}
}

Need to optimise counting positive and negative values

I need to optimise code that counts pos/neg values and remove non-qualified values by time.
I have queue of values with time-stamp attached.
I need to discard values which are 1ms old and count negative and positive values. here is pseudo code
list<val> l;
v = q.dequeue();
deleteold(l, v.time);
l.add(v);
negcount = l.count(i => i.value < 0);
poscount = l.count(i => i.value >= 0);
if(negcount == 10) return -1;
if(poscount == 10) return 1;
I need this code in c# working with max speed. No need to stick to the List. In fact arrays separated for neg and pos values are welcome.
edit: probably unsafe arrays will be the best. any hints?
EDIT: thanks for the heads up.. i quickly tested array version vs list (which i already have) and the list is faster: 35 vs 16 ms for 1 mil iterations...
Here is the code for fairness sake:
class Program
{
static int LEN = 10;
static int LEN1 = 9;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Var[] data = GenerateData();
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++)
{
sw.Reset();
ArraysMethod(data, sw);
Console.Write("Array: {0:0.0000}ms ", sw.ElapsedTicks / 10000.0);
sw.Reset();
ListMethod(data, sw);
Console.WriteLine("List: {0:0.0000}ms", sw.ElapsedTicks / 10000.0);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void ArraysMethod(Var[] data, Stopwatch sw)
{
int signal = 0;
int ni = 0, pi = 0;
Var[] n = new Var[LEN];
Var[] p = new Var[LEN];
for (int i = 0; i < LEN; i++)
{
n[i] = new Var();
p[i] = new Var();
}
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < DATALEN; i++)
{
Var v = data[i];
if (v.val < 0)
{
int x = 0;
ni = 0;
// time is not sequential
for (int j = 0; j < LEN; j++)
{
long diff = v.time - n[j].time;
if (diff < 0)
diff = 0;
// too old
if (diff > 10000)
x = j;
else
ni++;
}
n[x] = v;
if (ni >= LEN1)
signal = -1;
}
else
{
int x = 0;
pi = 0;
// time is not sequential
for (int j = 0; j < LEN; j++)
{
long diff = v.time - p[j].time;
if (diff < 0)
diff = 0;
// too old
if (diff > 10000)
x = j;
else
pi++;
}
p[x] = v;
if (pi >= LEN1)
signal = 1;
}
}
sw.Stop();
}
private static void ListMethod(Var[] data, Stopwatch sw)
{
int signal = 0;
List<Var> d = new List<Var>();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < DATALEN; i++)
{
Var v = data[i];
d.Add(new Var() { time = v.time, val = v.val < 0 ? -1 : 1 });
// delete expired
for (int j = 0; j < d.Count; j++)
{
if (v.time - d[j].time < 10000)
d.RemoveAt(j--);
else
break;
}
int cnt = 0;
int k = d.Count;
for (int j = 0; j < k; j++)
{
cnt += d[j].val;
}
if ((cnt >= 0 ? cnt : -cnt) >= LEN)
signal = 9;
}
sw.Stop();
}
static int DATALEN = 1000000;
private static Var[] GenerateData()
{
Random r = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond);
Var[] data = new Var[DATALEN];
Var prev = new Var() { val = 0, time = DateTime.Now.TimeOfDay.Ticks};
for (int i = 0; i < DATALEN; i++)
{
int x = r.Next(20);
data[i] = new Var() { val = x - 10, time = prev.time + x * 1000 };
}
return data;
}
class Var
{
public int val;
public long time;
}
}

To get negcount and poscount, you are traversing the entire list twice.
Instead, traverse it once (to compute negcount), and then poscount = l.Count - negcount.

Some ideas:
Only count until max(negcount,poscount) becomes 10, then quit (no need to count the rest). Only works if 10 is the maximum count.
Count negative and positive items in 1 go.
Calculate only negcount and infer poscount from count-negcount which is easier to do than counting them both.
Whether any of them are faster than what you have now, and which is fastest, depends among other things on what the data typically looks like. Is it long? Short?
Some more about 3:
You can use trickery to avoid branches here. You don't have to test whether the item is negative, you can add its negativity to a counter. Supposing the item is x and it is an int, x >> 31 is 0 for positive x and -1 for negative x. So counter -= x >> 31 will give negcount.
Edit: unsafe arrays can be faster, but shouldn't be in this case, because the loop would be of the form
for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
do something with array[i];
Which is optimized by the JIT compiler.