I want to compare two lists with the same number of elements, and find the number of differences between them. Right now, I have this code (which works):
public static int CountDifferences<T> (this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException ("Lists must have the same number of elements", "list2");
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < list1.Count; i++) {
if (!EqualityComparer<T>.Default.Equals (list1[i], list2[i]))
count++;
}
return count;
}
This feels messy to me, and it seems like there must be a more elegant way to achieve it. Is there a way, perhaps, to combine the two lists into a single list of tuples, then simple examine each element of the new list to see if both elements are equal?
Since order in the list does count this would be my approach:
public static int CountDifferences<T>(this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException("Lists must have the same number of elements", "list2");
int count = list1.Zip(list2, (a, b) => a.Equals(b) ? 0 : 1).Sum();
return count;
}
Simply merging the lists using Enumerable.Zip() then summing up the differences, still O(n) but this just enumerates the lists once.
Also this approach would work on any two IEnumerable of the same type since we do not use the list indexer (besides obviously in your count comparison in the guard check).
I think your approach is fine, but you could use LINQ to simplify your function:
public static int CountDifferences<T>(this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if(list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException("Lists must have same # elements", "list2");
return list1.Where((t, i) => !Equals(t, list2[i])).Count();
}
The way you have it written in the question, I don't think Intersect does what you're looking for. For example, say you have:
var list1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 };
var list2 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 };
If you run list1.CountDifferences(list2), I'm assuming that you want to get back 2 since elements 2 and 3 are different. Intersect in this case will return 5 since the lists have 5 elements in common. So, if you're looking for 5 then Intersect is the way to go. If you're looking to return 2 then you could use the LINQ statement above.
Try something like this:
var result = list1.Intersect(list2);
var differences = list1.Count - result.Count();
If order counts:
var result = a.Where((x,i) => x !=b[i]);
var differences = result.Count();
You want the Intersect extension method of Enumerable.
public static int CountDifferences<T> (this IList<T> list1, IList<T> list2)
{
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
throw new ArgumentException ("Lists must have the same number of elements", "list2");
return list1.Count - list1.Intersect(list2).Count();
}
You can use the extension method Zip of List.
List<int> lst1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
List<int> lst2 = new List<int> { 6, 2, 9, 4, 5 };
int cntDiff = lst1.Zip(lst2, (a, b) => a != b).Count(a => a);
// Output is 2
Related
I have a list of lists which I want to find the intersection for like this:
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 2, 3, 4 };
var list3 = new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 };
var listOfLists = new List<List<int>>() { list1, list2, list3 };
// expected intersection is List<int>() { 3 };
Is there some way to do this with IEnumerable.Intersect()?
EDIT:
I should have been more clear on this: I really have a list of lists, I don't know how many there will be, the three lists above was just an example, what I have is actually an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<SomeClass>>
SOLUTION
Thanks for all great answers. It turned out there were four options for solving this: List+aggregate (#Marcel Gosselin), List+foreach (#JaredPar, #Gabe Moothart), HashSet+aggregate (#jesperll) and HashSet+foreach (#Tony the Pony). I did some performance testing on these solutions (varying number of lists, number of elements in each list and random number max size.
It turns out that for most situations the HashSet performs better than the List (except with large lists and small random number size, because of the nature of HashSet I guess.)
I couldn't find any real difference between the foreach method and the aggregate method (the foreach method performs slightly better.)
To me, the aggregate method is really appealing (and I'm going with that as the accepted answer) but I wouldn't say it's the most readable solution.. Thanks again all!
How about:
var intersection = listOfLists
.Skip(1)
.Aggregate(
new HashSet<T>(listOfLists.First()),
(h, e) => { h.IntersectWith(e); return h; }
);
That way it's optimized by using the same HashSet throughout and still in a single statement. Just make sure that the listOfLists always contains at least one list.
You can indeed use Intersect twice. However, I believe this will be more efficient:
HashSet<int> hashSet = new HashSet<int>(list1);
hashSet.IntersectWith(list2);
hashSet.IntersectWith(list3);
List<int> intersection = hashSet.ToList();
Not an issue with small sets of course, but if you have a lot of large sets it could be significant.
Basically Enumerable.Intersect needs to create a set on each call - if you know that you're going to be doing more set operations, you might as well keep that set around.
As ever, keep a close eye on performance vs readability - the method chaining of calling Intersect twice is very appealing.
EDIT: For the updated question:
public List<T> IntersectAll<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> lists)
{
HashSet<T> hashSet = null;
foreach (var list in lists)
{
if (hashSet == null)
{
hashSet = new HashSet<T>(list);
}
else
{
hashSet.IntersectWith(list);
}
}
return hashSet == null ? new List<T>() : hashSet.ToList();
}
Or if you know it won't be empty, and that Skip will be relatively cheap:
public List<T> IntersectAll<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> lists)
{
HashSet<T> hashSet = new HashSet<T>(lists.First());
foreach (var list in lists.Skip(1))
{
hashSet.IntersectWith(list);
}
return hashSet.ToList();
}
Try this, it works but I'd really like to get rid of the .ToList() in the aggregate.
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 2, 3, 4 };
var list3 = new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 };
var listOfLists = new List<List<int>>() { list1, list2, list3 };
var intersection = listOfLists.Aggregate((previousList, nextList) => previousList.Intersect(nextList).ToList());
Update:
Following comment from #pomber, it is possible to get rid of the ToList() inside the Aggregate call and move it outside to execute it only once. I did not test for performance whether previous code is faster than the new one. The change needed is to specify the generic type parameter of the Aggregate method on the last line like below:
var intersection = listOfLists.Aggregate<IEnumerable<int>>(
(previousList, nextList) => previousList.Intersect(nextList)
).ToList();
You could do the following
var result = list1.Intersect(list2).Intersect(list3).ToList();
This is my version of the solution with an extension method that I called IntersectMany.
public static IEnumerable<TResult> IntersectMany<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, IEnumerable<TResult>> selector)
{
using (var enumerator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if(!enumerator.MoveNext())
return new TResult[0];
var ret = selector(enumerator.Current);
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
ret = ret.Intersect(selector(enumerator.Current));
}
return ret;
}
}
So the usage would be something like this:
var intersection = (new[] { list1, list2, list3 }).IntersectMany(l => l).ToList();
This is my one-row solution for List of List (ListOfLists) without intersect function:
var intersect = ListOfLists.SelectMany(x=>x).Distinct().Where(w=> ListOfLists.TrueForAll(t=>t.Contains(w))).ToList()
This should work for .net 4 (or later)
After searching the 'net and not really coming up with something I liked (or that worked), I slept on it and came up with this. Mine uses a class (SearchResult) which has an EmployeeId in it and that's the thing I need to be common across lists. I return all records that have an EmployeeId in every list. It's not fancy, but it's simple and easy to understand, just what I like. For small lists (my case) it should perform just fine—and anyone can understand it!
private List<SearchResult> GetFinalSearchResults(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<SearchResult>> lists)
{
Dictionary<int, SearchResult> oldList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>();
Dictionary<int, SearchResult> newList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>();
oldList = lists.First().ToDictionary(x => x.EmployeeId, x => x);
foreach (List<SearchResult> list in lists.Skip(1))
{
foreach (SearchResult emp in list)
{
if (oldList.Keys.Contains(emp.EmployeeId))
{
newList.Add(emp.EmployeeId, emp);
}
}
oldList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>(newList);
newList.Clear();
}
return oldList.Values.ToList();
}
Here's an example just using a list of ints, not a class (this was my original implementation).
static List<int> FindCommon(List<List<int>> items)
{
Dictionary<int, int> oldList = new Dictionary<int, int>();
Dictionary<int, int> newList = new Dictionary<int, int>();
oldList = items[0].ToDictionary(x => x, x => x);
foreach (List<int> list in items.Skip(1))
{
foreach (int i in list)
{
if (oldList.Keys.Contains(i))
{
newList.Add(i, i);
}
}
oldList = new Dictionary<int, int>(newList);
newList.Clear();
}
return oldList.Values.ToList();
}
This is a simple solution if your lists are all small. If you have larger lists, it's not as performing as hash set:
public static IEnumerable<T> IntersectMany<T>(this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> input)
{
if (!input.Any())
return new List<T>();
return input.Aggregate(Enumerable.Intersect);
}
This question already has answers here:
Interleaving multiple (more than 2) irregular lists using LINQ
(5 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
Suppose I have list of list. I want to create new list from given list of list such that elements are in order of example given below.
Inputs:-
List<List<int>> l = new List<List<int>>();
List<int> a = new List<int>();
a.Add(1);
a.Add(2);
a.Add(3);
a.Add(4);
List<int> b = new List<int>();
b.Add(11);
b.Add(12);
b.Add(13);
b.Add(14);
b.Add(15);
b.Add(16);
b.Add(17);
b.Add(18);
l.Add(a);
l.Add(b);
Output(list):-
1
11
2
12
3
13
4
14
15
16
And output list must not contain more than 10 elements.
I am currently doing this using foreach inside while but I want to know how can I do this using LINQ.
int loopCounter = 0,index=0;
List<int> o=new List<int>();
while(o.Count<10)
{
foreach(List<int> x in l)
{
if(o.Count<10)
o.Add(x[index]);
}
index++;
}
Thanks.
Use the SelectMany and Select overloads that receive the item's index. That will be used to apply the desired ordering. The use of the SelectMany is to flatten the nested collections level. Last, apply Take to retrieve only the desired number of items:
var result = l.SelectMany((nested, index) =>
nested.Select((item, nestedIndex) => (index, nestedIndex, item)))
.OrderBy(i => i.nestedIndex)
.ThenBy(i => i.index)
.Select(i => i.item)
.Take(10);
Or in query syntax:
var result = (from c in l.Select((nestedCollection, index) => (nestedCollection, index))
from i in c.nestedCollection.Select((item, index) => (item, index))
orderby i.index, c.index
select i.item).Take(10);
If using a C# 6.0 and prior project an anonymous type instead:
var result = l.SelectMany((nested, index) =>
nested.Select((item, nestedIndex) => new {index, nestedIndex, item}))
.OrderBy(i => i.nestedIndex)
.ThenBy(i => i.index)
.Select(i => i.item)
.Take(10);
To explain why Zip alone is not enough: zip is equivalent to performing a join operation on the second collection to the first, where the
attribute to join by is the index. Therefore Only items that exist in the first collection, if they have a match in the second, will appear in the result.
The next option is to think about left join which will return all items of the first collection with a match (if exists) in the second. In the case described OP is looking for the functionality of a full outer join - get all items of both collection and match when possible.
I know you asked for LINQ, but I do often feel that LINQ is a hammer and as soon as a developer finds it, every problem is a nail. I wouldn't have done this one with LINQ, for a readability/maintainability point of view because I think something like this is simpler and easier to understand/more self documenting:
List<int> r = new List<int>(10);
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
if(i < a.Count)
r.Add(a[i]);
if(i < b.Count)
r.Add(b[i]);
}
You don't need to stop the loop early if a and b collectively only have eg 8 items, but you could by extending the test of the for loop
I also think this case may be more performant than LINQ because it's doing a lot less
If your mandate to use LINQ is academic (this is a homework that must use LINQ) then go ahead, but if it's a normal everyday system that some other poor sucker will have to maintain one day, I implore you to consider whether this is a good application for LINQ
This will handle 2 or more internal List<List<int>>'s - it returns an IEnumerable<int> via yield so you have to call .ToList() on it to make it a list. Linq.Any is used for the break criteria.
Will throw on any list being null. Add checks to your liking.
static IEnumerable<int> FlattenZip (List<List<int>> ienum, int maxLength = int.MaxValue)
{
int done = 0;
int index = 0;
int yielded = 0;
while (yielded <= maxLength && ienum.Any (list => index < list.Count))
foreach (var l in ienum)
{
done++;
if (index < l.Count)
{
// this list is big enough, we will take one out
yielded++;
yield return l[index];
}
if (yielded > maxLength)
break; // we are done
if (done % (ienum.Count) == 0)
index += 1; // checked all lists, advancing index
}
}
public static void Main ()
{
// other testcases to consider:
// in total too few elememts
// one list empty (but not null)
// too many lists (11 for 10 elements)
var l1 = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var l2 = new List<int> { 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 };
var l3 = new List<int> { 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 };
var l = new List<List<int>> { l1, l2, l3 };
var zipped = FlattenZip (l, 10);
Console.WriteLine (string.Join (", ", zipped));
Console.ReadLine ();
}
I have two instances of IEnumerable<T> (with the same T). I want a new instance of IEnumerable<T> which is the concatenation of both.
Is there a built-in method in .NET to do that or do I have to write it myself?
Yes, LINQ to Objects supports this with Enumerable.Concat:
var together = first.Concat(second);
NB: Should first or second be null you would receive a ArgumentNullException. To avoid this & treat nulls as you would an empty set, use the null coalescing operator like so:
var together = (first ?? Enumerable.Empty<string>()).Concat(second ?? Enumerable.Empty<string>()); //amending `<string>` to the appropriate type
The Concat method will return an object which implements IEnumerable<T> by returning an object (call it Cat) whose enumerator will attempt to use the two passed-in enumerable items (call them A and B) in sequence. If the passed-in enumerables represent sequences which will not change during the lifetime of Cat, and which can be read from without side-effects, then Cat may be used directly. Otherwise, it may be a good idea to call ToList() on Cat and use the resulting List<T> (which will represent a snapshot of the contents of A and B).
Some enumerables take a snapshot when enumeration begins, and will return data from that snapshot if the collection is modified during enumeration. If B is such an enumerable, then any change to B which occurs before Cat has reached the end of A will show up in Cat's enumeration, but changes which occur after that will not. Such semantics may likely be confusing; taking a snapshot of Cat can avoid such issues.
You can use below code for your solution:-
public void Linq94()
{
int[] numbersA = { 0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 };
int[] numbersB = { 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 };
var allNumbers = numbersA.Concat(numbersB);
Console.WriteLine("All numbers from both arrays:");
foreach (var n in allNumbers)
{
Console.WriteLine(n);
}
}
I know this is a relatively old post, but if you wanted to concatenate multiple IEnumerable's, I use the following
var joinedSel = new[] { first, second, third }.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
This eliminates any null IEnumerable's and allows for multiple concatenations.
Based off of craig1231's answer, I've created some extension methods...
public static IEnumerable<T> JoinLists<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list1, IEnumerable<T> list2)
{
var joined = new[] { list1, list2 }.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
return joined ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
public static IEnumerable<T> JoinLists<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list1, IEnumerable<T> list2, IEnumerable<T> list3)
{
var joined = new[] { list1, list2, list3 }.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
return joined ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
public static IEnumerable<T> JoinMany<T>(params IEnumerable<T>[] array)
{
var final = array.Where(x => x != null).SelectMany(x => x);
return final ?? Enumerable.Empty<T>();
}
// The answer that I was looking for when searching
public void Answer()
{
IEnumerable<YourClass> first = this.GetFirstIEnumerableList();
// Assign to empty list so we can use later
IEnumerable<YourClass> second = new List<YourClass>();
if (IwantToUseSecondList)
{
second = this.GetSecondIEnumerableList();
}
IEnumerable<SchemapassgruppData> concatedList = first.Concat(second);
}
I have a list of lists which I want to find the intersection for like this:
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 2, 3, 4 };
var list3 = new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 };
var listOfLists = new List<List<int>>() { list1, list2, list3 };
// expected intersection is List<int>() { 3 };
Is there some way to do this with IEnumerable.Intersect()?
EDIT:
I should have been more clear on this: I really have a list of lists, I don't know how many there will be, the three lists above was just an example, what I have is actually an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<SomeClass>>
SOLUTION
Thanks for all great answers. It turned out there were four options for solving this: List+aggregate (#Marcel Gosselin), List+foreach (#JaredPar, #Gabe Moothart), HashSet+aggregate (#jesperll) and HashSet+foreach (#Tony the Pony). I did some performance testing on these solutions (varying number of lists, number of elements in each list and random number max size.
It turns out that for most situations the HashSet performs better than the List (except with large lists and small random number size, because of the nature of HashSet I guess.)
I couldn't find any real difference between the foreach method and the aggregate method (the foreach method performs slightly better.)
To me, the aggregate method is really appealing (and I'm going with that as the accepted answer) but I wouldn't say it's the most readable solution.. Thanks again all!
How about:
var intersection = listOfLists
.Skip(1)
.Aggregate(
new HashSet<T>(listOfLists.First()),
(h, e) => { h.IntersectWith(e); return h; }
);
That way it's optimized by using the same HashSet throughout and still in a single statement. Just make sure that the listOfLists always contains at least one list.
You can indeed use Intersect twice. However, I believe this will be more efficient:
HashSet<int> hashSet = new HashSet<int>(list1);
hashSet.IntersectWith(list2);
hashSet.IntersectWith(list3);
List<int> intersection = hashSet.ToList();
Not an issue with small sets of course, but if you have a lot of large sets it could be significant.
Basically Enumerable.Intersect needs to create a set on each call - if you know that you're going to be doing more set operations, you might as well keep that set around.
As ever, keep a close eye on performance vs readability - the method chaining of calling Intersect twice is very appealing.
EDIT: For the updated question:
public List<T> IntersectAll<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> lists)
{
HashSet<T> hashSet = null;
foreach (var list in lists)
{
if (hashSet == null)
{
hashSet = new HashSet<T>(list);
}
else
{
hashSet.IntersectWith(list);
}
}
return hashSet == null ? new List<T>() : hashSet.ToList();
}
Or if you know it won't be empty, and that Skip will be relatively cheap:
public List<T> IntersectAll<T>(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> lists)
{
HashSet<T> hashSet = new HashSet<T>(lists.First());
foreach (var list in lists.Skip(1))
{
hashSet.IntersectWith(list);
}
return hashSet.ToList();
}
Try this, it works but I'd really like to get rid of the .ToList() in the aggregate.
var list1 = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3 };
var list2 = new List<int>() { 2, 3, 4 };
var list3 = new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 };
var listOfLists = new List<List<int>>() { list1, list2, list3 };
var intersection = listOfLists.Aggregate((previousList, nextList) => previousList.Intersect(nextList).ToList());
Update:
Following comment from #pomber, it is possible to get rid of the ToList() inside the Aggregate call and move it outside to execute it only once. I did not test for performance whether previous code is faster than the new one. The change needed is to specify the generic type parameter of the Aggregate method on the last line like below:
var intersection = listOfLists.Aggregate<IEnumerable<int>>(
(previousList, nextList) => previousList.Intersect(nextList)
).ToList();
You could do the following
var result = list1.Intersect(list2).Intersect(list3).ToList();
This is my version of the solution with an extension method that I called IntersectMany.
public static IEnumerable<TResult> IntersectMany<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, IEnumerable<TResult>> selector)
{
using (var enumerator = source.GetEnumerator())
{
if(!enumerator.MoveNext())
return new TResult[0];
var ret = selector(enumerator.Current);
while (enumerator.MoveNext())
{
ret = ret.Intersect(selector(enumerator.Current));
}
return ret;
}
}
So the usage would be something like this:
var intersection = (new[] { list1, list2, list3 }).IntersectMany(l => l).ToList();
This is my one-row solution for List of List (ListOfLists) without intersect function:
var intersect = ListOfLists.SelectMany(x=>x).Distinct().Where(w=> ListOfLists.TrueForAll(t=>t.Contains(w))).ToList()
This should work for .net 4 (or later)
After searching the 'net and not really coming up with something I liked (or that worked), I slept on it and came up with this. Mine uses a class (SearchResult) which has an EmployeeId in it and that's the thing I need to be common across lists. I return all records that have an EmployeeId in every list. It's not fancy, but it's simple and easy to understand, just what I like. For small lists (my case) it should perform just fine—and anyone can understand it!
private List<SearchResult> GetFinalSearchResults(IEnumerable<IEnumerable<SearchResult>> lists)
{
Dictionary<int, SearchResult> oldList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>();
Dictionary<int, SearchResult> newList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>();
oldList = lists.First().ToDictionary(x => x.EmployeeId, x => x);
foreach (List<SearchResult> list in lists.Skip(1))
{
foreach (SearchResult emp in list)
{
if (oldList.Keys.Contains(emp.EmployeeId))
{
newList.Add(emp.EmployeeId, emp);
}
}
oldList = new Dictionary<int, SearchResult>(newList);
newList.Clear();
}
return oldList.Values.ToList();
}
Here's an example just using a list of ints, not a class (this was my original implementation).
static List<int> FindCommon(List<List<int>> items)
{
Dictionary<int, int> oldList = new Dictionary<int, int>();
Dictionary<int, int> newList = new Dictionary<int, int>();
oldList = items[0].ToDictionary(x => x, x => x);
foreach (List<int> list in items.Skip(1))
{
foreach (int i in list)
{
if (oldList.Keys.Contains(i))
{
newList.Add(i, i);
}
}
oldList = new Dictionary<int, int>(newList);
newList.Clear();
}
return oldList.Values.ToList();
}
This is a simple solution if your lists are all small. If you have larger lists, it's not as performing as hash set:
public static IEnumerable<T> IntersectMany<T>(this IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> input)
{
if (!input.Any())
return new List<T>();
return input.Aggregate(Enumerable.Intersect);
}
I need to determine whether or not two sets contains exactly the same elements. The ordering does not matter.
For instance, these two arrays should be considered equal:
IEnumerable<int> data = new []{3, 5, 6, 9};
IEnumerable<int> otherData = new []{6, 5, 9, 3}
One set cannot contain any elements, that are not in the other.
Can this be done using the built-in query operators? And what would be the most efficient way to implement it, considering that the number of elements could range from a few to hundreds?
If you want to treat the arrays as "sets" and ignore order and duplicate items, you can use HashSet<T>.SetEquals method:
var isEqual = new HashSet<int>(first).SetEquals(second);
Otherwise, your best bet is probably sorting both sequences in the same way and using SequenceEqual to compare them.
I suggest sorting both, and doing an element-by-element comparison.
data.OrderBy(x => x).SequenceEqual(otherData.OrderBy(x => x))
I'm not sure how fast the implementation of OrderBy is, but if it's a O(n log n) sort like you'd expect the total algorithm is O(n log n) as well.
For some cases of data, you can improve on this by using a custom implementation of OrderBy that for example uses a counting sort, for O(n+k), with k the size of the range wherein the values lie.
If you might have duplicates (or if you want a solution which performs better for longer lists), I'd try something like this:
static bool IsSame<T>(IEnumerable<T> set1, IEnumerable<T> set2)
{
if (set1 == null && set2 == null)
return true;
if (set1 == null || set2 == null)
return false;
List<T> list1 = set1.ToList();
List<T> list2 = set2.ToList();
if (list1.Count != list2.Count)
return false;
list1.Sort();
list2.Sort();
return list1.SequenceEqual(list2);
}
UPDATE: oops, you guys are right-- the Except() solution below needs to look both ways before crossing the street. And it has lousy perf for longer lists. Ignore the suggestion below! :-)
Here's one easy way to do it. Note that this assumes the lists have no duplicates.
bool same = data.Except (otherData).Count() == 0;
Here is another way to do it:
IEnumerable<int> data = new[] { 3, 5, 6, 9 };
IEnumerable<int> otherData = new[] { 6, 5, 9, 3 };
data = data.OrderBy(d => d);
otherData = otherData.OrderBy(d => d);
data.Zip(otherData, (x, y) => Tuple.Create(x, y)).All(d => d.Item1 == d.Item2);
First, check the length. If they are different, the sets are different.
you can do data.Intersect(otherData);, and check the length is identical.
OR, simplt sort the sets, and iterate through them.
First check if both data collections have the same number of elements and the check if all the elements in one collection are presented in the other
IEnumerable<int> data = new[] { 3, 5, 6, 9 };
IEnumerable<int> otherData = new[] { 6, 5, 9, 3 };
bool equals = data.Count() == otherData.Count() && data.All(x => otherData.Contains(x));
This should help:
IEnumerable<int> data = new []{ 3,5,6,9 };
IEnumerable<int> otherData = new[] {6, 5, 9, 3};
if(data.All(x => otherData.Contains(x)))
{
//Code Goes Here
}