We Keep Coding

Possible to force an object to be garbage collected in Gen 1 or Gen 2 and not in Gen 0?

An interviewer asked me a weird question of which I couldn't find answer.
Is it possible to force an object to be garbage collected in Gen 1 or Gen 2 and not in Gen 0?

Yes.
public class WillAlwaysBeCollectedInGen1or2
{
~WillAlwaysBeCollectedInGen1or2()
{
}
}
Because it has a finaliser, and no code that ever calls GC.SuppressFinalize(this), then it will always end up in the finalisation queue instead of being collected when it first becomes eligible for collection, which means it will always be collected in a generation other than the first.
Of course, since we generally want the opposite to happen (objects are collected as soon as possible) this shows why one should not define a finaliser unless it's actually needed, and should always call GC.SuppressFinalize(this) if an object is in a state where finalisation doesn't do anything useful (most obviously if it's been disposed of explicitly, but there can be other cases).
So, the usefulness of this knowledge is this; in knowing what not to do.
By extension, you can force an arbitrary object to be collected in Gen1 or Gen2 only by holding a strong reference to it in such an object:
public class PreventGen0Collection
{
private object _keptAlive;
public PreventGen0Collection(object keptAlive)
{
_keptAlive = keptAlive;
}
~PreventGen0Collection()
{
}
}
Because PreventGen0Collection is itself prevented from collection until at least Gen 1, as explained above, the object passed to its constructor is kept from even being eligible for collection on a GC sweep, and will hence be promoted to the next generation.
Again, this demonstrates code to avoid; being finalisable causes not just an object to be promoted, but a whole graph. Never use finalisers when you don't need to, and suppress finalisation when you can.

You can't... But you can extend the life of an object until some point. The simplest way inside a method is to have a:
var myObject = new MyObject();
... some code
... some other code
// The object won't be colleted until this point **at least**
GC.KeepAlive(myObject)
Or you can use GCHandle:
var myObject = new MyObject();
this.Handle = GCHandle.Alloc(new object(), GCHandleType.Normal);
(where this.Handle is a field of your object)
and perhaps in another method:
this.Handle.Free();
The description of GCHandleType.Normal is:
You can use this type to track an object and prevent its collection by the garbage collector. This enumeration member is useful when an unmanaged client holds the only reference, which is undetectable from the garbage collector, to a managed object.
Note that if you do this (the GCHandle "this") inside a class, you should implement the IDisposable pattern to free the this.Handle.
Ok... Technically you could:
var myObject = new MyObject();
GC.Collect(0); // collects all gen0 objects... Uncollected gen0 objects become gen1
GC.KeepAlive(myObject);
Now myObject is gen1... But this won't really solve your problem :-)

According to the documentation of GC.Collect:
Forces an immediate garbage collection of all generations.
Then yes, you can do that. Simply force a collection.
As described here, Fundamentals of Garbage Collection, under Survival and promotions:
Objects that are not reclaimed in a garbage collection are known as survivors, and are promoted to the next generation.
As such, if the object was in generation 0 before you forced a collection, it will now be in generation 1.
OK, and then, what if I don't have a reference to the object any more? What happens if I force a collection then? Well, most likely it will be collected. Can it be fixed? Well, depends on what you mean by "fixed", but yes.
Add a finalizer to the object. A finalizer will make the object be moved on to a separate list during collection, ready for the finalizer thread to finalize it. Only after the finalizer has processed it will it again be eligible for collection but by then it has already been promoted.
Also note that if you add the finalizer because you need to handle the case of not having a reference you don't really need to force the collection any more since this is an interview question with a very specific problem, you have now guaranteed that it will survive generation 0.
So two steps, either of which will guarantee that the object is not collected in generation 0:
Add a finalizer
Hold on to a reference to the object and force a collection.
Caveat: Garbage collection is documented, but have been tuned various ways and times during the life of .NET. Whether the documentation and above text can be taken as documentation fixed in stone or whether there are optimizations done here that can for instance make GC.Collect not force a collection because a collection is already in progress I don't know.
Since you asked in the context of an interview I would say the above should be your answer to the interviewer, but don't rely on any of this in practice.
GUIDELINE: Relying on the internals of the garbage collectors is one way to make brittle code.
DON'T DO IT.
The only place I've seen good reasons for actually messing with GC.Collect, and even there it is dubious, is in a more or less single-threaded system that deals in big batches. For instance a Windows service that processes big batches of data periodically could do one batch, then force a collection to reduce memory footprint until the next batch comes due.
However, this is a highly specialized case. Other than satisfying an interviewer, GC.Collect should not (as a guideline) be present in your production code.

Object instantiation within destructor of same class and garbage collection

Recently, while taking an introductory unit focused on Object Oriented programming, I was introduced to the Garbage Collector in C#, and that it's role is to "clean up" objects that are no longer being referenced. Then I was introduced to destructors, and how they're called just before the object is deleted.
Naturally, I got thinking, but I never remembered to ask the lecturer about it; what will happen if you create an instance of a class within the destructor of the same class?
C# example
class Person{
~Person(){
Person p = new Person();
Console.WriteLine("Person destroyed");
}
}
class Program{
static void Main(string[] args){
Person p = new Person();
}
}
I would like to approach this from a more theoretical point of view, so I'm reluctant (at this stage) to try it since I probably wouldn't understand anyway, but I have a few theories. Besides, I'm not at my regular computer right now ;)
Person.~Person() is going to recurse, as each time the new Person is created, it's going to call its destructor and create a new Person ad infinitum, or until some kind of memory-related exception occurs. Subsequently, main will never terminate.
The compiler will complain (adding this option to every scenario seems like a good idea anyway).
Somehow, some kind of "destructor skipping" will occur. ie. object destruction wouldn't be called sequentially, so neither would the constructor.
Now for a similarly related question. If the Garbage Collector's role is to delete the objects that are no longer referenced/needed, how would a situation like the one above be handled in an environment without a Garbage Collector - say, C++?

There's no real mystery here I think.
It won't 'recurse' as such - you're just chucking a new object on the managed heap which is immediately dereferenced; thus making it a candidate for garbage collection.
Eventually the garbage collector will come round again, triggering the operation again etc.
That's not recursion - more like a chain. But ultimately each Person will be removed from memory.
And, after a while the Garbage collector will send you an email complaining that you're not playing fair.
As for C++, well my guess is a stack overflow, since construction/destruction is happening there and then, and a very sulky computer afterwards.
If your next logical thought is 'shouldn't the runtime/language stop this from happening?' - no. The language or runtimes in question are not there to stop you doing something that would otherwise be considered ill-advised; it trusts you, the programmer, to make sure you're not doing that.
That said - in an application shutdown scenario (re your comment below) the .Net runtime is going to act out of self-interest and will ultimately stop processing these finalizers to enact a shutdown. Finalizers are for your benefit, not the runtime's.

A more interesting point to make is that an object can actually resurrect itself in the finalizer!
class Foo
{
static public List<Foo> ZombieFoos = new List<Foo>;
~Foo()
{
ZombieFoos.Add(this);
// Now there is a reference to this instance again (in the list)..
// The GC will not reclaim this instance.. huzzah we have been resurrected!!
}
}
Not even remotely recommended...

You could, in fact, cause system to be 99.9 time in GC. Just acquire sufficient amount of memory by every Person object for GC to trigger Heap 0 collection.

What is the correct way to free memory in C#

I have a timer in C# which executes some code inside it's method. Inside the code I'm using several temporary objects.
If I have something like Foo o = new Foo(); inside the method, does that mean that each time the timer ticks, I'm creating a new object and a new reference to that object?
If I have string foo = null and then I just put something temporal in foo, is it the same as above?
Does the garbage collector ever delete the object and the reference or objects are continually created and stay in memory?
If I just declare Foo o; and not point it to any instance, isn't that disposed when the method ends?
If I want to ensure that everything is deleted, what is the best way of doing it:
with the using statement inside the method
by calling dispose method at the end
by putting Foo o; outside the timer's method and just make the assignment o = new Foo() inside, so then the pointer to the object is deleted after the method ends, the garbage collector will delete the object.

1.If I have something like Foo o = new Foo(); inside the method, does that
mean that each time the timer ticks,
I'm creating a new object and a new
reference to that object?
Yes.
2.If I have string foo = null and then I just put something temporal in foo,
is it the same as above?
If you are asking if the behavior is the same then yes.
3.Does the garbage collector ever delete the object and the reference or
objects are continually created and
stay in memory?
The memory used by those objects is most certainly collected after the references are deemed to be unused.
4.If I just declare Foo o; and not point it to any instance, isn't that
disposed when the method ends?
No, since no object was created then there is no object to collect (dispose is not the right word).
5.If I want to ensure that everything is deleted, what is the best way of
doing it
If the object's class implements IDisposable then you certainly want to greedily call Dispose as soon as possible. The using keyword makes this easier because it calls Dispose automatically in an exception-safe way.
Other than that there really is nothing else you need to do except to stop using the object. If the reference is a local variable then when it goes out of scope it will be eligible for collection.1 If it is a class level variable then you may need to assign null to it to make it eligible before the containing class is eligible.
1This is technically incorrect (or at least a little misleading). An object can be eligible for collection long before it goes out of scope. The CLR is optimized to collect memory when it detects that a reference is no longer used. In extreme cases the CLR can collect an object even while one of its methods is still executing!
Update:
Here is an example that demonstrates that the GC will collect objects even though they may still be in-scope. You have to compile a Release build and run this outside of the debugger.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Before allocation");
var bo = new BigObject();
Console.WriteLine("After allocation");
bo.SomeMethod();
Console.ReadLine();
// The object is technically in-scope here which means it must still be rooted.
}
private class BigObject
{
private byte[] LotsOfMemory = new byte[Int32.MaxValue / 4];
public BigObject()
{
Console.WriteLine("BigObject()");
}
~BigObject()
{
Console.WriteLine("~BigObject()");
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Begin SomeMethod");
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
Console.WriteLine("End SomeMethod");
}
}
On my machine the finalizer is run while SomeMethod is still executing!

The .NET garbage collector takes care of all this for you.
It is able to determine when objects are no longer referenced and will (eventually) free the memory that had been allocated to them.

Objects are eligable for garbage collection once they go out of scope become unreachable (thanks ben!). The memory won't be freed unless the garbage collector believes you are running out of memory.
For managed resources, the garbage collector will know when this is, and you don't need to do anything.
For unmanaged resources (such as connections to databases or opened files) the garbage collector has no way of knowing how much memory they are consuming, and that is why you need to free them manually (using dispose, or much better still the using block)
If objects are not being freed, either you have plenty of memory left and there is no need, or you are maintaining a reference to them in your application, and therefore the garbage collector will not free them (in case you actually use this reference you maintained)

Let's answer your questions one by one.
Yes, you make a new object whenever this statement is executed, however, it goes "out of scope" when you exit the method and it is eligible for garbage collection.
Well this would be the same as #1, except that you've used a string type. A string type is immutable and you get a new object every time you make an assignment.
Yes the garbage collector collects the out of scope objects, unless you assign the object to a variable with a large scope such as class variable.
Yes.
The using statement only applies to objects that implement the IDisposable interface. If that is the case, by all means using is best for objects within a method's scope. Don't put Foo o at a larger scope unless you have a good reason to do so. It is best to limit the scope of any variable to the smallest scope that makes sense.

Here's a quick overview:
Once references are gone, your object will likely be garbage collected.
You can only count on statistical collection that keeps your heap size normal provided all references to garbage are really gone. In other words, there is no guarantee a specific object will ever be garbage collected.
It follows that your finalizer will also never be guaranteed to be called. Avoid finalizers.
Two common sources of leaks:
Event handlers and delegates are references. If you subscribe to an event of an object, you are referencing to it. If you have a delegate to an object's method, you are referencing it.
Unmanaged resources, by definition, are not automatically collected. This is what the IDisposable pattern is for.
Finally, if you want a reference that does not prevent the object from getting collected, look into WeakReference.
One last thing: If you declare Foo foo; without assigning it you don't have to worry - nothing is leaked. If Foo is a reference type, nothing was created. If Foo is a value type, it is allocated on the stack and thus will automatically be cleaned up.

Yes
What do you mean by the same? It will be re-executed every time the method is run.
Yes, the .Net garbage collector uses an algorithm that starts with any global/in-scope variables, traverses them while following any reference it finds recursively, and deletes any object in memory deemed to be unreachable. see here for more detail on Garbage Collection
Yes, the memory from all variables declared in a method is released when the method exits as they are all unreachable. In addition, any variables that are declared but never used will be optimized out by the compiler, so in reality your Foo variable will never ever take up memory.
the using statement simply calls dispose on an IDisposable object when it exits, so this is equivalent to your second bullet point. Both will indicate that you are done with the object and tell the GC that you are ready to let go of it. Overwriting the only reference to the object will have a similar effect.

The garbage collector will come around and clean up anything that no longer has references to it. Unless you have unmanaged resources inside Foo, calling Dispose or using a using statement on it won't really help you much.
I'm fairly sure this applies, since it was still in C#. But, I took a game design course using XNA and we spent some time talking about the garbage collector for C#. Garbage collecting is expensive, since you have to check if you have any references to the object you want to collect. So, the GC tries to put this off as long as possible. So, as long as you weren't running out of physical memory when your program went to 700MB, it might just be the GC being lazy and not worrying about it yet.
But, if you just use Foo o outside the loop and create a o = new Foo() each time around, it should all work out fine.

As Brian points out the GC can collect anything that is unreachable including objects that are still in scope and even while instance methods of those objects are still executing. consider the following code:
class foo
{
static int liveFooInstances;
public foo()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref foo.liveFooInstances);
}
public void TestMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("entering method");
while (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref foo.liveFooInstances, 1, 1) == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine("running GC.Collect");
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
}
Console.WriteLine("exiting method");
}
~foo()
{
Console.WriteLine("in ~foo");
Interlocked.Decrement(ref foo.liveFooInstances);
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
foo aFoo = new foo();
aFoo.TestMethod();
//Console.WriteLine(aFoo.ToString()); // if this line is uncommented TestMethod will never return
}
}
if run with a debug build, with the debugger attached, or with the specified line uncommented TestMethod will never return. But running without a debugger attached TestMethod will return.

Do you need to dispose of objects and set them to null?

Do you need to dispose of objects and set them to null, or will the garbage collector clean them up when they go out of scope?

Objects will be cleaned up when they are no longer being used and when the garbage collector sees fit. Sometimes, you may need to set an object to null in order to make it go out of scope (such as a static field whose value you no longer need), but overall there is usually no need to set to null.
Regarding disposing objects, I agree with #Andre. If the object is IDisposable it is a good idea to dispose it when you no longer need it, especially if the object uses unmanaged resources. Not disposing unmanaged resources will lead to memory leaks.
You can use the using statement to automatically dispose an object once your program leaves the scope of the using statement.
using (MyIDisposableObject obj = new MyIDisposableObject())
{
// use the object here
} // the object is disposed here
Which is functionally equivalent to:
MyIDisposableObject obj;
try
{
obj = new MyIDisposableObject();
}
finally
{
if (obj != null)
{
((IDisposable)obj).Dispose();
}
}

Objects never go out of scope in C# as they do in C++. They are dealt with by the Garbage Collector automatically when they are not used anymore. This is a more complicated approach than C++ where the scope of a variable is entirely deterministic. CLR garbage collector actively goes through all objects that have been created and works out if they are being used.
An object can go "out of scope" in one function but if its value is returned, then GC would look at whether or not the calling function holds onto the return value.
Setting object references to null is unnecessary as garbage collection works by working out which objects are being referenced by other objects.
In practice, you don't have to worry about destruction, it just works and it's great :)
Dispose must be called on all objects that implement IDisposable when you are finished working with them. Normally you would use a using block with those objects like so:
using (var ms = new MemoryStream()) {
//...
}
EDIT On variable scope. Craig has asked whether the variable scope has any effect on the object lifetime. To properly explain that aspect of CLR, I'll need to explain a few concepts from C++ and C#.
Actual variable scope
In both languages the variable can only be used in the same scope as it was defined - class, function or a statement block enclosed by braces. The subtle difference, however, is that in C#, variables cannot be redefined in a nested block.
In C++, this is perfectly legal:
int iVal = 8;
//iVal == 8
if (iVal == 8){
int iVal = 5;
//iVal == 5
}
//iVal == 8
In C#, however you get a a compiler error:
int iVal = 8;
if(iVal == 8) {
int iVal = 5; //error CS0136: A local variable named 'iVal' cannot be declared in this scope because it would give a different meaning to 'iVal', which is already used in a 'parent or current' scope to denote something else
}
This makes sense if you look at generated MSIL - all the variables used by the function are defined at the start of the function. Take a look at this function:
public static void Scope() {
int iVal = 8;
if(iVal == 8) {
int iVal2 = 5;
}
}
Below is the generated IL. Note that iVal2, which is defined inside the if block is actually defined at function level. Effectively this means that C# only has class and function level scope as far as variable lifetime is concerned.
.method public hidebysig static void Scope() cil managed
{
// Code size 19 (0x13)
.maxstack 2
.locals init ([0] int32 iVal,
[1] int32 iVal2,
[2] bool CS$4$0000)
//Function IL - omitted
} // end of method Test2::Scope
C++ scope and object lifetime
Whenever a C++ variable, allocated on the stack, goes out of scope it gets destructed. Remember that in C++ you can create objects on the stack or on the heap. When you create them on the stack, once execution leaves the scope, they get popped off the stack and gets destroyed.
if (true) {
MyClass stackObj; //created on the stack
MyClass heapObj = new MyClass(); //created on the heap
obj.doSomething();
} //<-- stackObj is destroyed
//heapObj still lives
When C++ objects are created on the heap, they must be explicitly destroyed, otherwise it is a memory leak. No such problem with stack variables though.
C# Object Lifetime
In CLR, objects (i.e. reference types) are always created on the managed heap. This is further reinforced by object creation syntax. Consider this code snippet.
MyClass stackObj;
In C++ this would create an instance on MyClass on the stack and call its default constructor. In C# it would create a reference to class MyClass that doesn't point to anything. The only way to create an instance of a class is by using new operator:
MyClass stackObj = new MyClass();
In a way, C# objects are a lot like objects that are created using new syntax in C++ - they are created on the heap but unlike C++ objects, they are managed by the runtime, so you don't have to worry about destructing them.
Since the objects are always on the heap the fact that object references (i.e. pointers) go out of scope becomes moot. There are more factors involved in determining if an object is to be collected than simply presence of references to the object.
C# Object references
Jon Skeet compared object references in Java to pieces of string that are attached to the balloon, which is the object. Same analogy applies to C# object references. They simply point to a location of the heap that contains the object. Thus, setting it to null has no immediate effect on the object lifetime, the balloon continues to exist, until the GC "pops" it.
Continuing down the balloon analogy, it would seem logical that once the balloon has no strings attached to it, it can be destroyed. In fact this is exactly how reference counted objects work in non-managed languages. Except this approach doesn't work for circular references very well. Imagine two balloons that are attached together by a string but neither balloon has a string to anything else. Under simple ref counting rules, they both continue to exist, even though the whole balloon group is "orphaned".
.NET objects are a lot like helium balloons under a roof. When the roof opens (GC runs) - the unused balloons float away, even though there might be groups of balloons that are tethered together.
.NET GC uses a combination of generational GC and mark and sweep. Generational approach involves the runtime favouring to inspect objects that have been allocated most recently, as they are more likely to be unused and mark and sweep involves runtime going through the whole object graph and working out if there are object groups that are unused. This adequately deals with circular dependency problem.
Also, .NET GC runs on another thread(so called finalizer thread) as it has quite a bit to do and doing that on the main thread would interrupt your program.

As others have said you definitely want to call Dispose if the class implements IDisposable. I take a fairly rigid position on this. Some might claim that calling Dispose on DataSet, for example, is pointless because they disassembled it and saw that it did not do anything meaningful. But, I think there are fallacies abound in that argument.
Read this for an interesting debate by respected individuals on the subject. Then read my reasoning here why I think Jeffery Richter is in the wrong camp.
Now, on to whether or not you should set a reference to null. The answer is no. Let me illustrate my point with the following code.
public static void Main()
{
Object a = new Object();
Console.WriteLine("object created");
DoSomething(a);
Console.WriteLine("object used");
a = null;
Console.WriteLine("reference set to null");
}
So when do you think the object referenced by a is eligible for collection? If you said after the call to a = null then you are wrong. If you said after the Main method completes then you are also wrong. The correct answer is that it is eligible for collection sometime during the call to DoSomething. That is right. It is eligible before the reference is set to null and perhaps even before the call to DoSomething completes. That is because the JIT compiler can recognize when object references are no longer dereferenced even if they are still rooted.

You never need to set objects to null in C#. The compiler and runtime will take care of figuring out when they are no longer in scope.
Yes, you should dispose of objects that implement IDisposable.

If the object implements IDisposable, then yes, you should dispose it. The object could be hanging on to native resources (file handles, OS objects) that might not be freed immediately otherwise. This can lead to resource starvation, file-locking issues, and other subtle bugs that could otherwise be avoided.
See also Implementing a Dispose Method on MSDN.

I agree with the common answer here that yes you should dispose and no you generally shouldn't set the variable to null... but I wanted to point out that dispose is NOT primarily about memory management. Yes, it can help (and sometimes does) with memory management, but it's primary purpose is to give you deterministic releasing of scarce resources.
For example, if you open a hardware port (serial for example), a TCP/IP socket, a file (in exclusive access mode) or even a database connection you have now prevented any other code from using those items until they are released. Dispose generally releases these items (along with GDI and other "os" handles etc. which there are 1000's of available, but are still limited overall). If you don't call dipose on the owner object and explicitly release these resources, then try to open the same resource again in the future (or another program does) that open attempt will fail because your undisposed, uncollected object still has the item open. Of course, when the GC collects the item (if the Dispose pattern has been implemented correctly) the resource will get released... but you don't know when that will be, so you don't know when it's safe to re-open that resource. This is the primary issue Dispose works around. Of course, releasing these handles often releases memory too, and never releasing them may never release that memory... hence all the talk about memory leaks, or delays in memory clean up.
I have seen real world examples of this causing problems. For instance, I have seen ASP.Net web applications that eventually fail to connect to the database (albeit for short periods of time, or until the web server process is restarted) because the sql server 'connection pool is full'... i.e, so many connections have been created and not explicitly released in so short a period of time that no new connections can be created and many of the connections in the pool, although not active, are still referenced by undiposed and uncollected objects and so can't be reused. Correctly disposing the database connections where necessary ensures this problem doesn't happen (at least not unless you have very high concurrent access).

If they implement the IDisposable interface then you should dispose them. The garbage collector will take care of the rest.
EDIT: best is to use the using command when working with disposable items:
using(var con = new SqlConnection("..")){ ...

Always call dispose. It is not worth the risk. Big managed enterprise applications should be treated with respect. No assumptions can be made or else it will come back to bite you.
Don't listen to leppie.
A lot of objects don't actually implement IDisposable, so you don't have to worry about them. If they genuinely go out of scope they will be freed automatically. Also I have never come across the situation where I have had to set something to null.
One thing that can happen is that a lot of objects can be held open. This can greatly increase the memory usage of your application. Sometimes it is hard to work out whether this is actually a memory leak, or whether your application is just doing a lot of stuff.
Memory profile tools can help with things like that, but it can be tricky.
In addition always unsubscribe from events that are not needed. Also be careful with WPF binding and controls. Not a usual situation, but I came across a situation where I had a WPF control that was being bound to an underlying object. The underlying object was large and took up a large amount of memory. The WPF control was being replaced with a new instance, and the old one was still hanging around for some reason. This caused a large memory leak.
In hindsite the code was poorly written, but the point is that you want to make sure that things that are not used go out of scope. That one took a long time to find with a memory profiler as it is hard to know what stuff in memory is valid, and what shouldn't be there.

When an object implements IDisposable you should call Dispose (or Close, in some cases, that will call Dispose for you).
You normally do not have to set objects to null, because the GC will know that an object will not be used anymore.
There is one exception when I set objects to null. When I retrieve a lot of objects (from the database) that I need to work on, and store them in a collection (or array). When the "work" is done, I set the object to null, because the GC does not know I'm finished working with it.
Example:
using (var db = GetDatabase()) {
// Retrieves array of keys
var keys = db.GetRecords(mySelection);
for(int i = 0; i < keys.Length; i++) {
var record = db.GetRecord(keys[i]);
record.DoWork();
keys[i] = null; // GC can dispose of key now
// The record had gone out of scope automatically,
// and does not need any special treatment
}
} // end using => db.Dispose is called

Normally, there's no need to set fields to null. I'd always recommend disposing unmanaged resources however.
From experience I'd also advise you to do the following:
Unsubscribe from events if you no longer need them.
Set any field holding a delegate or an expression to null if it's no longer needed.
I've come across some very hard to find issues that were the direct result of not following the advice above.
A good place to do this is in Dispose(), but sooner is usually better.
In general, if a reference exists to an object the garbage collector (GC) may take a couple of generations longer to figure out that an object is no longer in use. All the while the object remains in memory.
That may not be a problem until you find that your app is using a lot more memory than you'd expect. When that happens, hook up a memory profiler to see what objects are not being cleaned up. Setting fields referencing other objects to null and clearing collections on disposal can really help the GC figure out what objects it can remove from memory. The GC will reclaim the used memory faster making your app a lot less memory hungry and faster.

I have to answer, too.
The JIT generates tables together with the code from it's static analysis of variable usage.
Those table entries are the "GC-Roots" in the current stack frame. As the instruction pointer advances, those table entries become invalid and so ready for garbage collection.
Therefore: If it is a scoped variable, you don't need to set it to null - the GC will collect the object.
If it is a member or a static variable, you have to set it to null

A little late to the party, but there is one scenario that I don't think has been mentioned here - if class A implements IDisposable, and exposes public properties that are also IDisposable objects, then I think it's good practice for class A not only to dispose of the disposable objects that it has created in its Dispose method, but also to set them to null. The reason for this is that disposing an object and letting it get GCed (because there are no more references to it) are by no means the same thing, although it is pretty definitely a bug if it happens. If a client of Class A does dispose its object of type ClassA, the object still exists. If the client then tries to access one of these public properties (which have also now been disposed) the results can be quite unexpected. If they have been nulled as well as disposed, there will be a null reference exception immediately, which will make the problem easier to diagnose.

In the Dispose(bool) method implementation, Shouldn't one set members to null?

None of the guides/notes/articles that discuss IDisposable pattern suggest that one should set the internal members to null in the Dispose(bool) method (especially if they are memory hogging beasts).
I've come to realize the importance of it while debugging an internal benchmark tool. What used to happen was that, there was this buffer that contained a big array inside it. We used to use a static buffer for the whole benchmark program. Once we're done with the buffer, there was no way we could release this internal array, neither could we make this buffer releasable (as it was static).
So, I believe that, after Dispose() is called, the class should do everything it can so that it releases all the resources it is using and make them available again, even if the object being disposed itself is not collected back by GC, and not setting members to null, thereby, not allowing the internal objects to be collected by the GC implies that the Dispose implementation is not perfect.
What's your opinion on this ?

Releasing any additional references during Dispose is certainly something I try to do, for two reasons:
it allows the inner objects to be garbage collected even if the disposed object is still in scope
if the inner objects are disposable, it means we only dispose them once even if Dispose() is called repeatedly on the outer object
For example, I tend to use things like:
if(someDisposableObject != null)
{
someDisposableObject.Dispose();
someDisposableObject = null;
}
(for non-disposable, just set to null)
someNonDisposableObject = null; // etc
You might also want to set any events to null:
someEventHandler = null;
This can help minimise the impact if the caller can't fully release their reference (or simply forgets) at the moment. While you should try to release the outer object (for GC), it is relatively easy to accidentally extend the life of the object, for example via a captured variable (anonymous method/lambda), an event, etc.
If you have a finalizer, then during the GC process there is no benefit doing this, and you shouldn't really call methods on external objects (even Dispose()) - so in short: don't do any of this during a GC sweep.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but once your object is disposed, the root or 'sub-root' it represented relative to it's members has been detached. It seems like you are thinking of garbage collection like a ref count system (which can be done, but ... usually isn't).
Instead, think of it as a many-rooted tree, where every object has branches for what it links to. At the end of the day the 'final roots' are statics and anything instantiated from a 'main' loop.
When the garbage collector runs, the easiest way to think about what it does is to consider that it will walk the list of 'real roots' and apply a 'color' to everything it can 'reach'.
Now, assumed the collector has access to 'everything', whether it was rooted or not. Anything not colored can be cleaned up.
Getting back to your original question, when your object is disposed, one assumes (or at least hopes) that no one references it anymore. If this is the case, it is no longer rooted, and so it will not contribute to 'coloring' anything it touches.
Long story longer - if nulling out members in a Dispose routine is fixing something - I would be you have a different, and real, problem that someone is holding a link to your disposed object, and keeping it 'reachable' when it should not be.
I apologize for what may be the most over-quote-filled message I've ever written, but I'm sort of abusing standard terms.

Well, generally, it's not going to make a difference. The only place where it will make a difference is when you have a reference to an object on the Large Object Heap, the behavior of which you have seen already).
There is a good article on the LOH which goes into this in more detail here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc534993.aspx