in C#, I have a string like this:
"1 3.14 (23, 23.2, 43,88) 8.27"
I need to convert this string to other types according to the value like int/float/vector3, now i have some code like this:
public static int ReadInt(this string s, ref string op)
{
s = s.Trim();
string ss = "";
int idx = s.IndexOf(" ");
if (idx > 0)
{
ss = s.Substring(0, idx);
op = s.Substring(idx);
}
else
{
ss = s;
op = "";
}
return Convert.ToInt32(ss);
}
this will read the first int value out, i have some similar functions to read float vector3 etc. but the problem is : in my application, i have to do this a lot because i received the string from some plugin and i need to do it every single frame, so i created a lot of strings which caused a lot GC will impact the performance, is their a way i can do similar stuff without creating temp strings?
Generation 0 objects such as those created here may well not impact performance too much, as they are relatively cheap to collect. I would change from using Convert to calling int.Parse() with the invariant culture before I started worrying about the GC overhead of the extra strings.
Also, you don't really need to create a new string to accomplish the Trim() behavior. After all, you're scanning and indexing the string anyway. Just do your initial scan for whitespace, and then for the space delimiter between ss and op, so you get just the substrings you need. Right now you're creating 50% more string instances than you really need.
All that said, no...there's not anything built into the basic .NET framework that would parse a substring without actually creating a new string instance. You would have to write your own parsing routines to accomplish that.
You should measure the actual real-world performance impact first, to make sure these substrings really are a significant issue.
I don't know what the "some plugin" is or how you have to handle the input from it, but I would not be surprised to hear that the overhead in acquiring the original input string(s) for this scenario swamps the overhead of the substrings for parsing.
I'm making an app that converts images into textual RRR GGG BBB string arrays.
It works very fast with small images, but when the pixel count of input image is very high, the app slows down progressively.
The application runs x,y loop through all the pixels of input image, scans each pixel and adds its RGB formatted values to the final string which will be saved as text after the whole image is scanned.
With help of built-in profiler I found out that the System.String.Concat(string,string) takes more and more time the bigger the final string gets.
I then tried making a temporary string that will save the result of calculations of 1 row and before entering the next row, add it to the final string. Now it works about ten times faster, but still closer to the end, performance drops.
But in the end all my test images are smaller than the real ones are going to be. How do I keep concatenation speed high with even bigger images?
Use System.Text.StringBuilder:
var sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append(r);
sb.Append(g);
sb.Append(b);
string result = sb.ToString();
This class is designed especially for fast string concatenation. I don't know anything faster (for general case) that it.
To elaborate on #abatishchev's answer:
When you concatenate strings, you're actually creating a new string instance for each concatenation, so you're allocating thousands (millions?) of tiny strings all the time.
A StringBuilder, however, uses an internal character buffer to manage the string as it is built, and avoids these frequent allocations.
Usage is like this:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (Pixel pixel in myPixels)
{
sb.Append(ConvertToString(pixel));
}
string myString = sb.ToString();
As everyone said, yes, use StringBuilder.
BUT
If you already have the strings to concatenate in the form of some collection, String.Join() proved to be faster.
Just note that.
Use String.Join("", myarray);
Use StringBuilder like this:
//add reference
using System.Text
//create string builder
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
//add items to it
sb.Append("some text");
sb.Append(" more text");
StringBuilder designed to work with huge and complex strings.
foreach (string sn in MACOrSerial.Split(','))
{
MACOrSerial = sn.Trim();
}
MACORSerial contains a string of text (EX. AA123241, BB123431, CC1231243) separated by commas.
I grab one substring and place that into the same MACORSerial.
This will not cause me any problems as the the foreach still will be using the original MACOrSerial in memory.
While I think this is the most memory efficient approach, is it proper or should I just make another string with a new name such as
MacORSerialSubString = sn.Trim()?
I am not having any memory issues. I just want to make sure my code is clean and concise.
Your assumption is incorrect - the loop goes over the string[] resulting from the Split - these are all new string instances.
You are not saving any memory by reassigning a string to the original variable and you are losing readability by reuse of a variable.
Here is one approach that is more readable and uses some of the built in capabilities:
string[] serialNumbers = MACOrSerial.Split(new [] {',', ' ', '\r', '\n' },
StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
foreach (string sn in serialNumbers)
{
// do stuff
}
My $.02- the code as you posted is extremely un-intuitive, because it breaks with the expected pattern.
IMHO it is more important to write the code in a way that other developers can understand at a glance than it is to (actually / attempt to) micro-optimize for memory, especially when (as others have pointed out) your micro-optimization does not actually reduce the amount of memory used.
I would create a new variable so that your code is more clear. It doesn't have any noticable impact on memory.
For clarity (and later maintaining) of the code, I would prefer use of a separate variable. Plus I would remove the empty strings up front:
foreach (string sn in MACOrSerial.Split(',', StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries))
{
string MacORSerialSubString = sn.Trim();
}
In reality, your iteration will be using the result of the MACOrSerial.Split() call, which is an array that is independent from the MACOrSerial variable.
There will be no difference between using MACOrSerial or another string variable in terms of memory usage, each time sn.Trim() is called, a new string is generated and it's just the reference to this new string that gets placed in your string variable.
So...I have this scenario where I have a Foreach loop that loops through a List of Checkboxes to check which are selected. For every selected checkbox, I have to do a pretty long string concatenation, involving 30 different strings of an average length of 20 characters, and then send it out as a HTTP request. 2 of the strings are dependant on the index/value of the checkbox selected.
The length of the List of Checkboxes is also variable depending upon the user's data. I would say the average length of the List would be 20, but it can go up to 50-60. So the worst case scenario would be performing the whole string concatenation 60 or so times.
For now I'm doing it with simple string concatenation via the '+' operator, but I'm wondering if it would be faster to do it with Stringbuilder. Of course, that means I'd have to either create a Stringbuilder object within the loop, or create it before the loop and call Stringbuilder.Remove at the end of it after sending out the HTTP request.
I appreciate any insights anybody can share regarding this issue.
EDIT
Thanks for all the replies everybody, so from what I've gathered, the best way for me to go about doing this would be something like:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (CheckBox item in FriendCheckboxList)
{
if (item.Checked)
{
sb.Append(string1);
sb.Append(string2);
sb.Append(string3);
.
.
.
sb.Append(stringLast);
SendRequest(sb.ToString());
sb.Length = 0;
}
}
Use StringBuilder. That's what it's for.
Strings are immutable. String concatenation creates a new string, needing more memory, and is generally considered slow:
string a = "John" + " " + "Saunders";
This creates a string "John ", then creates another string "John Saunders", then finally, assigns that to "a". The "John " is left for garbage collection.
string a = "John";
a += " ";
a += "Saunders";
This is about the same, as "John" is replaced by a new string "John ", which is replaced by a new string "John Saunders". The originals are left to be garbage collected.
On the other hand, StringBuilder is designed to be appended, removed, etc.
Example:
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
for (int i=0; i<n; i++)
{
sb.Length = 0;
sb.Append(field1[i]);
sb.Append(field2[i]);
...
sb.Append(field30[i]);
// Do something with sb.ToString();
}
This topic has been analysed to death over the years. The end result is that if you are doing a small, known number of concatenations, use '+', otherwise use stringbuilder. From what you've said, concatenate with '+' should be faster. There are a gazillion (give or take) sites out there analysing this - google it.
For the size of string you are talking about, it's negligible anyway.
EDIT: on second thought, SB is probably faster. But like I said, who cares?
I know this has been answered, but I wanted to point out that I actually think the "blindly accepted as gospel" approach of always using StringBuilder is sometimes wrong, and this is one case.
For background, see this blog entry: http://geekswithblogs.net/johnsperfblog/archive/2005/05/27/40777.aspx
The short of it is, for this particular case, as described, you will see better performance by avoiding StringBuilder and making use of the + operator thusly:
foreach (CheckBox item in FriendCheckboxList)
{
if (item.Checked)
{
string request = string1 +
string2 +
string3 +
.
.
.
stringLast;
SendRequest(request);
}
}
The reason is that the C# compiler (as of .NET 1.1), will convert that statement into a single IL call to String.Concat passing an array of Strings as an argument. The blog entry does an excellent job outlining the implementation details of String.Concat, but suffice to say, it is extremely efficient for this case.
If your asking this question, chances are you should use StringBuilder for many reasons, but i'll provide two.
When you use string concatenation it has to allocate a new buffer and and copy the data in the other string into the new string variable. So you are going to incur many repeated allocations. Which in the end ends up fragmenting the memory, using up heap space, and making more work for the Garbage collector.
The StringBuilder on the other hand pre-allocates a buffer and as you add strings to it doesn't need to keep re-allocating (assuming initial buffer is large enough). Which increases performance and is far less taxing on memory.
As developers we should try to anticipate future growth. Let's say that your list grows substantially over time and then all of a sudden starts performing slowly. If you can prevent this with little effort now, why wouldn't you do it?
In general I would recommend to use a StringBuilder.
Have you tested this and checked the performance? Is the performance an issue vs how long it will take you to rewrite the code?
I understand the difference between String and StringBuilder (StringBuilder being mutable) but is there a large performance difference between the two?
The program I’m working on has a lot of case driven string appends (500+). Is using StringBuilder a better choice?
Yes, the performance difference is significant. See the KB article "How to improve string concatenation performance in Visual C#".
I have always tried to code for clarity first, and then optimize for performance later. That's much easier than doing it the other way around! However, having seen the enormous performance difference in my applications between the two, I now think about it a little more carefully.
Luckily, it's relatively straightforward to run performance analysis on your code to see where you're spending the time, and then to modify it to use StringBuilder where needed.
To clarify what Gillian said about 4 string, if you have something like this:
string a,b,c,d;
a = b + c + d;
then it would be faster using strings and the plus operator. This is because (like Java, as Eric points out), it internally uses StringBuilder automatically (Actually, it uses a primitive that StringBuilder also uses)
However, if what you are doing is closer to:
string a,b,c,d;
a = a + b;
a = a + c;
a = a + d;
Then you need to explicitly use a StringBuilder. .Net doesn't automatically create a StringBuilder here, because it would be pointless. At the end of each line, "a" has to be an (immutable) string, so it would have to create and dispose a StringBuilder on each line. For speed, you'd need to use the same StringBuilder until you're done building:
string a,b,c,d;
StringBuilder e = new StringBuilder();
e.Append(b);
e.Append(c);
e.Append(d);
a = e.ToString();
StringBuilder is preferable IF you are doing multiple loops, or forks in your code pass... however, for PURE performance, if you can get away with a SINGLE string declaration, then that is much more performant.
For example:
string myString = "Some stuff" + var1 + " more stuff"
+ var2 + " other stuff" .... etc... etc...;
is more performant than
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.Append("Some Stuff");
sb.Append(var1);
sb.Append(" more stuff");
sb.Append(var2);
sb.Append("other stuff");
// etc.. etc.. etc..
In this case, StringBuild could be considered more maintainable, but is not more performant than the single string declaration.
9 times out of 10 though... use the string builder.
On a side note: string + var is also more performant that the string.Format approach (generally) that uses a StringBuilder internally (when in doubt... check reflector!)
A simple example to demonstrate the difference in speed when using String concatenation vs StringBuilder:
System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();
string test = string.Empty;
time.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
test += i;
}
time.Stop();
System.Console.WriteLine("Using String concatenation: " + time.ElapsedMilliseconds + " milliseconds");
Result:
Using String concatenation: 15423 milliseconds
StringBuilder test1 = new StringBuilder();
time.Reset();
time.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
test1.Append(i);
}
time.Stop();
System.Console.WriteLine("Using StringBuilder: " + time.ElapsedMilliseconds + " milliseconds");
Result:
Using StringBuilder: 10 milliseconds
As a result, the first iteration took 15423 ms while the second iteration using StringBuilder took 10 ms.
It looks to me that using StringBuilder is faster, a lot faster.
This benchmark shows that regular concatenation is faster when combining 3 or fewer strings.
http://www.chinhdo.com/20070224/stringbuilder-is-not-always-faster/
StringBuilder can make a very significant improvement in memory usage, especially in your case of adding 500 strings together.
Consider the following example:
string buffer = "The numbers are: ";
for( int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
buffer += i.ToString();
}
return buffer;
What happens in memory? The following strings are created:
1 - "The numbers are: "
2 - "0"
3 - "The numbers are: 0"
4 - "1"
5 - "The numbers are: 01"
6 - "2"
7 - "The numbers are: 012"
8 - "3"
9 - "The numbers are: 0123"
10 - "4"
11 - "The numbers are: 01234"
12 - "5"
13 - "The numbers are: 012345"
By adding those five numbers to the end of the string we created 13 string objects! And 12 of them were useless! Wow!
StringBuilder fixes this problem. It is not a "mutable string" as we often hear (all strings in .NET are immutable). It works by keeping an internal buffer, an array of char. Calling Append() or AppendLine() adds the string to the empty space at the end of the char array; if the array is too small, it creates a new, larger array, and copies the buffer there. So in the example above, StringBuilder might only need a single array to contain all 5 additions to the string-- depending on the size of its buffer. You can tell StringBuilder how big its buffer should be in the constructor.
String Vs String Builder:
First thing you have to know that In which assembly these two classes lives?
So,
string is present in System namespace.
and
StringBuilder is present in System.Text namespace.
For string declaration:
You have to include the System namespace.
something like this.
Using System;
and
For StringBuilder declaration:
You have to include the System.text namespace.
something like this.
Using System.text;
Now Come the the actual Question.
What is the differene between string & StringBuilder?
The main difference between these two is that:
string is immutable.
and
StringBuilder is mutable.
So Now lets discuss the difference between immutable and mutable
Mutable: : means Changable.
Immutable: : means Not Changable.
For example:
using System;
namespace StringVsStrigBuilder
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// String Example
string name = "Rehan";
name = name + "Shah";
name = name + "RS";
name = name + "---";
name = name + "I love to write programs.";
// Now when I run this program this output will be look like this.
// output : "Rehan Shah RS --- I love to write programs."
}
}
}
So in this case we are going to changing same object 5-times.
So the Obvious question is that ! What is actually happen under the hood, when we change the same string 5-times.
This is What Happen when we change the same string 5-times.
let look at the figure.
Explaination:
When we first initialize this variable "name" to "Rehan" i-e string name = "Rehan"
this variable get created on stack "name" and pointing to that "Rehan" value.
after this line is executed: "name = name + "Shah". the reference variable is no longer pointing to that object "Rehan" it now pointing to "Shah" and so on.
So string is immutable meaning that once we create the object in the memory we can't change them.
So when we concatinating the name variable the previous object remains there in the memory and another new string object is get created...
So from the above figure we have five-objects the four-objects are thrown away they are not used at all. They stil remain in memory and they occuy the amount of memory.
"Garbage Collector" is responsible for that so clean that resources from the memory.
So in case of string anytime when we manipulate the string over and over again we have some many objects Created ans stay there at in the memory.
So this is the story of string Variable.
Now Let's look at toward StringBuilder Object.
For Example:
using System;
using System.Text;
namespace StringVsStrigBuilder
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// StringBuilder Example
StringBuilder name = new StringBuilder();
name.Append("Rehan");
name.Append("Shah");
name.Append("RS");
name.Append("---");
name.Append("I love to write programs.");
// Now when I run this program this output will be look like this.
// output : "Rehan Shah Rs --- I love to write programs."
}
}
}
So in this case we are going to changing same object 5-times.
So the Obvious question is that ! What is actually happen under the hood, when we change the same StringBuilder 5-times.
This is What Happen when we change the same StringBuilder 5-times.
let look at the figure.
Explaination:
In case of StringBuilder object. you wouldn't get the new object. The same object will be change in memory so even if you change the object et say 10,000 times we will still have only one stringBuilder object.
You don't have alot of garbage objects or non_referenced stringBuilder objects because why it can be change. It is mutable meaning it change over a time?
Differences:
String is present in System namespace where as Stringbuilder present
in System.Text namespace.
string is immutable where as StringBuilder is mutabe.
Yes, StringBuilder gives better performance while performing repeated operation over a string. It is because all the changes are made to a single instance so it can save a lot of time instead of creating a new instance like String.
String Vs Stringbuilder
String
under System namespace
immutable (read-only) instance
performance degrades when continuous change of value occures
thread safe
StringBuilder (mutable string)
under System.Text namespace
mutable instance
shows better performance since new changes are made to existing instance
Strongly recommend dotnet mob article : String Vs StringBuilder in C#.
Related Stack Overflow question: Mutability of string when string
doesn't change in C#?.
StringBuilder reduces the number of allocations and assignments, at a cost of extra memory used. Used properly, it can completely remove the need for the compiler to allocate larger and larger strings over and over until the result is found.
string result = "";
for(int i = 0; i != N; ++i)
{
result = result + i.ToString(); // allocates a new string, then assigns it to result, which gets repeated N times
}
vs.
String result;
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(10000); // create a buffer of 10k
for(int i = 0; i != N; ++i)
{
sb.Append(i.ToString()); // fill the buffer, resizing if it overflows the buffer
}
result = sb.ToString(); // assigns once
The performance of a concatenation operation for a String or StringBuilder object depends on how often a memory allocation occurs. A String concatenation operation always allocates memory, whereas a StringBuilder concatenation operation only allocates memory if the StringBuilder object buffer is too small to accommodate the new data. Consequently, the String class is preferable for a concatenation operation if a fixed number of String objects are concatenated. In that case, the individual concatenation operations might even be combined into a single operation by the compiler. A StringBuilder object is preferable for a concatenation operation if an arbitrary number of strings are concatenated; for example, if a loop concatenates a random number of strings of user input.
Source: MSDN
Consider 'The Sad Tragedy of Micro-Optimization Theater'.
StringBuilder is better for building up a string from many non-constant values.
If you're building up a string from a lot of constant values, such as multiple lines of values in an HTML or XML document or other chunks of text, you can get away with just appending to the same string, because almost all compilers do "constant folding", a process of reducing the parse tree when you have a bunch of constant manipulation (it's also used when you write something like int minutesPerYear = 24 * 365 * 60). And for simple cases with non-constant values appended to each other, the .NET compiler will reduce your code to something similar to what StringBuilder does.
But when your append can't be reduced to something simpler by the compiler, you'll want a StringBuilder. As fizch points out, that's more likely to happen inside of a loop.
Further to the previous answers, the first thing I always do when thinking of issues like this is to create a small test application. Inside this app, perform some timing test for both scenarios and see for yourself which is quicker.
IMHO, appending 500+ string entries should definitely use StringBuilder.
I believe StringBuilder is faster if you have more than 4 strings you need to append together. Plus it can do some cool things like AppendLine.
In .NET, StringBuilder is still faster than appending strings. I'm pretty sure that in Java, they just create a StringBuffer under the hood when you append strings, so there's isn't really a difference. I'm not sure why they haven't done this in .NET yet.
StringBuilder is significantly more efficient but you will not see that performance unless you are doing a large amount of string modification.
Below is a quick chunk of code to give an example of the performance. As you can see you really only start to see a major performance increase when you get into large iterations.
As you can see the 200,000 iterations took 22 seconds while the 1 million iterations using the StringBuilder was almost instant.
string s = string.Empty;
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
Console.WriteLine("Beginning String + at " + DateTime.Now.ToString());
for (int i = 0; i <= 50000; i++)
{
s = s + 'A';
}
Console.WriteLine("Finished String + at " + DateTime.Now.ToString());
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Beginning String + at " + DateTime.Now.ToString());
for (int i = 0; i <= 200000; i++)
{
s = s + 'A';
}
Console.WriteLine("Finished String + at " + DateTime.Now.ToString());
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Beginning Sb append at " + DateTime.Now.ToString());
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++)
{
sb.Append("A");
}
Console.WriteLine("Finished Sb append at " + DateTime.Now.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
Result of the above code:
Beginning String + at 28/01/2013 16:55:40.
Finished String + at 28/01/2013 16:55:40.
Beginning String + at 28/01/2013 16:55:40.
Finished String + at 28/01/2013 16:56:02.
Beginning Sb append at 28/01/2013 16:56:02.
Finished Sb append at 28/01/2013 16:56:02.
Using strings for concatenation can lead to a runtime complexity on the order of O(n^2).
If you use a StringBuilder, there is a lot less copying of memory that has to be done. With the StringBuilder(int capacity) you can increase performance if you can estimate how large the final String is going to be. Even if you're not precise, you'll probably only have to grow the capacity of StringBuilder a couple of times which can help performance also.
I have seen significant performance gains from using the EnsureCapacity(int capacity) method call on an instance of StringBuilder before using it for any string storage. I usually call that on the line of code after instantiation. It has the same effect as if you instantiate the StringBuilder like this:
var sb = new StringBuilder(int capacity);
This call allocates needed memory ahead of time, which causes fewer memory allocations during multiple Append() operations. You have to make an educated guess on how much memory you will need, but for most applications this should not be too difficult. I usually err on the side of a little too much memory (we are talking 1k or so).
If you're doing a lot of string concatenation, use a StringBuilder. When you concatenate with a String, you create a new String each time, using up more memory.
Alex
String and StringBuilder are actually both immutable, the StringBuilder has built in buffers which allow its size to be managed more efficiently. When the StringBuilder needs to resize is when it is re-allocated on the heap. By default it is sized to 16 characters, you can set this in the constructor.
eg.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(50);
String concatenation will cost you more.
In Java, You can use either StringBuffer or StringBuilder based on your need.
If you want a synchronized, and thread safe implementation, go for StringBuffer. This will be faster than the String concatenation.
If you do not need synchronized or Thread safe implementation, go for StringBuilder.
This will be faster than String concatenation and also faster than StringBuffer as their is no synchorization overhead.
My approach has always been to use StringBuilder when concatenating 4 or more strings
OR
When I don't know how may concatenations are to take place.
Good performance related article on it here
StringBuilder will perform better, from a memory stand point. As for processing, the difference in time of execution may be negligible.
StringBuilder is probably preferable. The reason is that it allocates more space than currently needed (you set the number of characters) to leave room for future appends. Then those future appends that fit in the current buffer don't require any memory allocation or garbage collection, which can be expensive. In general, I use StringBuilder for complex string concatentation or multiple formatting, then convert to a normal String when the data is complete, and I want an immutable object again.
As a general rule of thumb, if I have to set the value of the string more than once, or if there are any appends to the string, then it needs to be a string builder. I have seen applications that I have written in the past before learning about string builders that have had a huge memory foot print that just seems to keep growing and growing. Changing these programs to use the string builder cut down the memory usage significantly. Now I swear by the string builder.