public static void DemoOutVsReturn()
{
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StopwatchWrapper.Time(() =>
{
}, out var sw1);
}, "Out parameter", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var sw2 = StopwatchWrapper.Time(() =>
{
});
}, "Return", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void InjectingTestScheduler_AndManipulatingVirtualTime_HappensInstantly()
{
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var expectedValues = new long[] { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 };
var actualValues = new List <long>();
var scheduler = new TestScheduler();
var subscription = Observable
.Interval(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1), scheduler)
.Take(5)
.Subscribe(actualValues.Add);
scheduler.Start();
CollectionAssert.AreEqual(expectedValues, actualValues);
Console.WriteLine("Collection was as expected.");
});
}
public static void Count()
{
List <int> list = DataGenerator.GetRandomIntArray(10).ToList();
int c = 0;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
//With extension method (the wrong way):
c = list.Count();
}, "Using extension method Count()", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
//TODO 1.10: With property (the right way):
c = list.Count();
}, "Using property Count", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void ExecuteSubstringVsAppendOverload(string s)
{
var builder = new StringBuilder();
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
builder.Clear();
string temp = s.Substring(5, 5);
builder.Append(temp);
}, "Substring append", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
builder.Clear();
//TODO 1.2: use append overload
builder.Append(s);
}, "Append overload", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void DemoLookupTableToLower()
{
string _lookupStringL = "--------------------------------------&-()*+,-./----------:;<=>?@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz[-]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~-";
char y = 'Y';
char result;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
result = char.ToLower(y);
}, "Char.ToLower()", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
result = _lookupStringL[y];
}, "Char to lower with lookup table", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
//A lookup table is a lot faster than the regular ToLower(), but using this alternative could cause localization issues
}
public static void DemoMemoization()
{
List <string> s = DataGenerator.GetRandomStringArray(10).ToList();
string result = string.Empty;
Dictionary <string, string> _upperCaseTempDictionary = new Dictionary <string, string>();
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
foreach (var item in s)
{
result = item.ToUpper();
}
}, "ToUpper()", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
foreach (var item in s)
{
if (_upperCaseTempDictionary.TryGetValue(item, out string lookupValue))
{
result = lookupValue;
continue;
}
lookupValue = item.ToUpper();
_upperCaseTempDictionary[item] = lookupValue;
}
}, "ToUpper() with lookup dictionary (memoization)", _count);
/*
* Memoization is a way of caching used to optimize a function.
* Known results are stored in memory, so the computation only runs once
*
* NOTE: the heavier a computation, the more useful this gets.
* Don't forget that Dictionaries will become slower as they increase in size!
* The following example would cause a performance hit when using a very big stringarray
*
* Alternative: inject IMemoryCache
*/
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void DemoRecursiveInline()
{
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
List<int> list = new List<int>();
ExecuteRecursiveMethod(list, 0);
}, "Recursive", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
List<int> list = new List<int>();
if (list.Count < 10)
{
list.Add(0);
ExecuteRecursiveMethod(list, 0 + 1);
}
}, "Recursive inline", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
//Summary: deeper call stack = less performant
}
public static void DemoJaggedTemporalLocality()
{
int height = 50;
int width = 50;
var jaggedArray = DataGenerator.GetJaggedArray(height, width);
int result;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < width; j++)
{
result = jaggedArray[j][i];
}
}
}, "Low temporal locality", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < width; j++)
{
result = jaggedArray[i][j];
}
}
}, "High temporal locality", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
/*
* https://stackoverflow.com/questions/763262/how-does-one-write-code-that-best-utilizes-the-cpu-cache-to-improve-performance
* The reason this is cache inefficient is because modern CPUs will load the cache line with "near" memory addresses
* from main memory when you access a single memory address.
* We are iterating through the "j"(outer) rows in the array in the inner loop,
* so for each trip through the inner loop,
* the cache line will cause to be flushed and loaded with a line of addresses that are near to the[j][i] entry
*/
}
public static void DetermineStringBuilderPerformanceVsConcat(string s, int cnt)
{
var capacity = cnt * s.Length;
Console.WriteLine("String count: " + cnt);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var str = string.Empty;
for (int i = 1; i < cnt; i++)
{
str += s;
}
}, "String Concatenation", 1, cnt);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var builder = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = 1; i < cnt; i++)
{
builder.Append(s);
}
var str = builder.ToString();
}, "Default StringBuilder", 1, cnt);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
//TODO 1.1: add stringbuilder capacity
var builder = new StringBuilder();
for (int i = 1; i < cnt; i++)
{
builder.Append(s);
}
var str = builder.ToString();
}, "StringBuilder with fixed capacity", 1, cnt);
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void ShowStringBuilderConcatenationPerformance()
{
string[] stringArray = DataGenerator.GetRandomStringArray(5);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder builder = _builder;
builder.Clear();
foreach (string value in stringArray)
{
builder.Append($"ABC {_count}"
+ "DEF"
+ string.Concat("GHI", "XYZ")
+ value);
}
var str = builder.ToString();
}, "With concats in append", _count);
string a = string.Empty;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder builder = _builder;
builder.Clear();
foreach (string value in stringArray)
{
a = $"ABC {_count}"
+ "DEF"
+ string.Concat("GHI", "XYZ")
+ value;
builder.Append(a);
}
var str = builder.ToString();
}, "Without concats in appends", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void DemoTryGetValueVsContainsKey()
{
var counts = new Dictionary <string, int> {
{ "key", DataGenerator.GetRandomInt() }
};
int result;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
if (counts.ContainsKey("key"))
{
result = counts["key"];
}
}, "ContainsKey()", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
if (counts.TryGetValue("key", out result))
{
}
}, "TryGetValue()", _count);
//Summary: use TryGetValue over ContainsKey, since ContainsKey causes an unnecessary lookup
}
public static void DemoJaggedArray()
{
int width = 50;
int height = 50;
int result;
// 2D array.
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
DataGenerator.Get2DArray(height, width);
}, "2D array creation", _count);
// Jagged array.
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
DataGenerator.GetJaggedArray(height, width);
}, "Jagged array creation", _count);
var twoDimensionalArray = DataGenerator.Get2DArray(height, width);
var jaggedArray = DataGenerator.GetJaggedArray(height, width);
// 2D array.
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int j = 0; j < height; j++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
result = twoDimensionalArray[j, a];
}
}
}, "2D array element access", _count);
// Jagged array.
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int j = 0; j < height; j++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
result = jaggedArray[a][j];
}
}
}, "Jagged array element access with low temporal locality", _count);
// Jagged array.
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int j = 0; j < height; j++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
result = jaggedArray[j][a];
}
}
}, "Jagged array element access with high temporal locality", _count);
/*
* Summary: 2D arrays are faster to allocate, but a lot slower to access than jagged arrays.
* Since element access count is usually a lot greater than array allocation count (1),
* using jagged arrays should still result in faster code, but be careful with memory usage
*
* Jagged array allocation slowdown explained:
* - 2D array only needs 1 allocation
* - Jagged array needs length * width + 1 allocations
* => this means garbage collection will have to do a lot more work when using jagged arrays
*
* Jagged array element access with imperformant index ordering => See DemoJaggedTemporalLocality explanation
*
* NOTE: jagged arrays don't necessarily have to be allocated at the start, u could do this lazily!
*
*/
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void DemoArrayFlattening()
{
var height = DataGenerator.GetRandomInt(5, 5);
var width = DataGenerator.GetRandomInt(5, 5);
int result;
int[,] twoDimensional = new int[height, width];
int[] oneDimensional = new int[width * height];
//2D
//Assign values
twoDimensional[0, 1] = 4;
twoDimensional[1, 2] = 5;
twoDimensional[2, 3] = 6;
twoDimensional[3, 4] = 7;
//Display array
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
Console.Write(twoDimensional[i, a]);
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
Console.WriteLine();
//1D
//Assign values
oneDimensional[1] = 4;
oneDimensional[1 * width + 2] = 5;
oneDimensional[2 * width + 3] = 6;
oneDimensional[3 * width + 4] = 7;
//Display array
for (int i = 0; i < height; i++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
Console.Write(oneDimensional[i * width + a]);
}
Console.WriteLine();
}
Console.WriteLine();
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
twoDimensional[0, 1] = 4;
twoDimensional[1, 2] = 5;
twoDimensional[2, 3] = 6;
twoDimensional[3, 4] = 7;
for (int j = 0; j < height; j++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
result = twoDimensional[j, a];
}
}
}, "2D array (assign & read)", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
oneDimensional[1] = 4;
oneDimensional[1 * width + 2] = 5;
oneDimensional[2 * width + 3] = 6;
oneDimensional[3 * width + 4] = 7;
for (int j = 0; j < height; j++)
{
for (int a = 0; a < width; a++)
{
result = oneDimensional[j * width + a];
}
}
}, "1D array (assign & read)", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void CompareDataTypes()
{
const int nrOfAppends = 100;
Console.WriteLine("Int vs. char: ");
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(1000);
for (int v = 0; v < nrOfAppends; v++)
{
s.Append(1);
}
}, "Int", _count, _count * nrOfAppends);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(1000);
for (int v = 0; v < nrOfAppends; v++)
{
s.Append('1');
}
}, "Char", _count, _count * nrOfAppends);
//Char is faster (string is an array of chars)
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Bool vs. string: ");
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(4000);
for (int v = 0; v < nrOfAppends; v++)
{
s.Append(true);
}
}, "Bool", _count, _count * nrOfAppends);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(4000);
for (int v = 0; v < nrOfAppends; v++)
{
s.Append("True");
}
}, "String", _count, _count * nrOfAppends);
//String is faster (bool is a value type, and has to be converted to a string, which is a reference type
//=> boxing occurs => performance hit)
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("String vs. char: ");
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(1000);
for (int v = 0; v < nrOfAppends; v++)
{
s.Append("a");
}
}, "String", _count, _count * nrOfAppends);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
StringBuilder s = new StringBuilder(1000);
for (int v = 0; v < nrOfAppends; v++)
{
s.Append('a');
}
}, "Char", _count, _count * nrOfAppends);
//Char is faster (string is a char array + char is a value type and string is a reference type)
Console.WriteLine();
}
public static void DemoClassVsStruct()
{
string str = DataGenerator.GetRandomString();
int i = DataGenerator.GetRandomInt();
Console.WriteLine("Initialization:");
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var a = new SomeClassWithStrings
{
A = str
};
}, "Class with string", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
SomeStructWithStrings a = new SomeStructWithStrings
{
A = str
};
}, "Struct with string", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var a = new SomeClassWithInts
{
A = i
};
}, "Class with int", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
SomeStructWithInts a = new SomeStructWithInts
{
A = i
};
}, "Struct with int", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("As a method parameter:");
var pair1 = new KeyValuePair <string, SomeClassWithStrings>("key", new SomeClassWithStrings());
var pair2 = new KeyValuePair <string, SomeStructWithStrings>("key", new SomeStructWithStrings());
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var a = pair2.Value;
}, "Struct as parameter", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
var a = pair1.Value;
}, "Class as parameter", _count);
/*
* Summary: Allocating structs is generally faster than allocating classes,
* however it's not recommended to use structs with a lot of fields,
* since the struct and all of it's fields will be copied onto the function stack when using structs as a parameter
*/
}
public static void DemoCommonSenseIfOrdering()
{
int count = 9999;
int amountOfDigits = 0;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int c = 0; c < count; c++)
{
if (c < 10)
{
amountOfDigits = 1;
}
else if (c < 100)
{
amountOfDigits = 2;
}
else if (c < 1000)
{
amountOfDigits = 3;
}
else
{
amountOfDigits = 4;
}
}
}, "Regular if");
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
for (int c = 0; c < count; c++)
{
//TODO 1.27: reorder if statement so amountOfDigits = 4 is in the first if statement
if (c < 10)
{
amountOfDigits = 1;
}
else if (c < 100)
{
amountOfDigits = 2;
}
else if (c < 1000)
{
amountOfDigits = 3;
}
else
{
amountOfDigits = 4;
}
}
}, "Reordered if");
Console.WriteLine();
/*
* Summary:
* Since our count is 9999, the else statement in the 1st example would result true more frequently than the other cases
* In the 2nd example, our first if statement will evaluate to true the most (9000 of our 9999 items are greater than 999)
* Reordening if statements so more frequent cases are at the top op the if-else statement improves performance, since less
* if statements have to be evaluated.
*/
}
public static void DemoIfVsSwitch()
{
int testValue1 = 100;
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
if (testValue1 == 0)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 1)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 2)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 3)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 4)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 5)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 6)
{
}
else
{
}
}, "If-else chain of 7 statements", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
switch (testValue1)
{
case 0:
break;
case 1:
break;
case 2:
break;
case 3:
break;
case 4:
break;
case 5:
break;
case 6:
break;
default:
break;
}
}, "Switch 7 cases", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
switch (testValue1)
{
case 0:
break;
case 1:
break;
default:
break;
}
}, "Switch 3 cases", _count);
Benchmarker.Benchmark(() =>
{
if (testValue1 == 0)
{
}
else if (testValue1 == 1)
{
}
else
{
}
}, "If-else chain of 3 statements", _count);
Console.WriteLine();
/*
* Summary:Switch statements are recommended for 7 cases & more
* However, if the input is almost always a specific value, then using an if-statement to test for that value may be faster.
*/
}
