C# 为什么枚举范围比直接产生循环快?

C# 为什么枚举范围比直接产生循环快?,c#,performance,ienumerable,range,enumerable,C#,Performance,Ienumerable,Range,Enumerable,下面的代码正在检查执行相同解决方案的三种不同方法的性能 public static void Main(string[] args) { // for loop { Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); int accumulator = 0; for (int i = 1; i <= 100000000; ++i)

下面的代码正在检查执行相同解决方案的三种不同方法的性能

    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        // for loop
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            int accumulator = 0;
            for (int i = 1; i <= 100000000; ++i)
            {
                accumulator += i;
            }

            sw.Stop();

            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, accumulator);
        }

        //Enumerable.Range
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            var ret = Enumerable.Range(1, 100000000).Aggregate(0, (accumulator, n) => accumulator + n);

            sw.Stop();
            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret);
        }

        //self-made IEnumerable<int>
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            var ret = GetIntRange(1, 100000000).Aggregate(0, (accumulator, n) => accumulator + n);

            sw.Stop();
            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret);
        }
    }

    private static IEnumerable<int> GetIntRange(int start, int count)
    {
        int end = start + count;

        for (int i = start; i < end; ++i)
        {
            yield return i;
        }
    }
}
毫不奇怪,“for循环”比其他两种解决方案更快,因为Enumerable.Aggregate需要更多的方法调用。然而,“Enumerable.Range”比“自制的IEnumerable”要快,这让我非常惊讶。我认为Enumerable.Range比简单的GetIntRange方法有更多的开销


产生这种情况的可能原因是什么?

假设这是一个正在运行的发布版本,否则所有的比较都将关闭,因为JIT将无法完全工作


您可以使用查看程序集,并查看“yield”语句的扩展内容。编译器将创建一个类来封装迭代器。可能生成的代码比Enumerable.Range的实现进行了更多的内务处理,它很可能是手工编码的

为什么
Enumerable.Range
要比您自制的
GetIntRange
慢?事实上,如果
可枚举.Range
被定义为

public static class Enumerable {
    public static IEnumerable<int> Range(int start, int count) {
        var end = start + count;
        for(var current = start; current < end; ++current) {
            yield return current;
        }
    }
}

我猜你正在调试器中运行。以下是我的结果,使用“/o+/debug”从命令行生成--


还有一点不同,但没有那么明显。迭代器块实现的效率不如定制的解决方案,但它们非常好。

反射器输出中的细微差别(以及参数检查和额外的内部化级别在这里绝对不相关)。基本代码更像是:

public static IEnumerable<int> Range(int start, int count) {
    for(int current = 0; current < count; ++current) {
        yield return start + current;
    }
}

是的,我是在调试模式下做实验的。因此,自制的方法生成调试代码。发布速度要快得多。这里有两件事:在调试模式下构建,在调试器中运行,而不是在未连接调试器的情况下执行。后者的影响更大。
public static class Enumerable {
    public static IEnumerable<int> Range(int start, int count) {
        return new RangeEnumerable(start, count);
    }
    private class RangeEnumerable : IEnumerable<int> {
        private int _Start;
        private int _Count;
        public RangeEnumerable(int start, int count) {
            _Start = start;
            _Count = count;
        }
        public virtual IEnumerator<int> GetEnumerator() {
            return new RangeEnumerator(_Start, _Count);
        }
        IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() {
            return GetEnumerator();
        }
    }
    private class RangeEnumerator : IEnumerator<int> {
        private int _Current;
        private int _End;
        public RangeEnumerator(int start, int count) {
            _Current = start - 1;
            _End = start + count;
        }
        public virtual void Dispose() {
            _Current = _End;
        }
        public virtual void Reset() {
            throw new NotImplementedException();
        }
        public virtual bool MoveNext() {
            ++_Current;
            return _Current < _End;
        }
        public virtual int Current { get { return _Current; } }
        object IEnumerator.Current { get { return Current; } }
    }
}
time = 142; result = 987459712
time = 1590; result = 987459712
time = 1792; result = 987459712
public static IEnumerable<int> Range(int start, int count) {
    for(int current = 0; current < count; ++current) {
        yield return start + current;
    }
}
Run 0: time = 4149; result = 405000000450000000 time = 25645; result = 405000000450000000 time = 39229; result = 405000000450000000 time = 29872; result = 405000000450000000 time = 4277; result = 405000000450000000 time = 26878; result = 405000000450000000 time = 26333; result = 405000000450000000 time = 26684; result = 405000000450000000 Run 1: time = 4063; result = 405000000450000000 time = 22714; result = 405000000450000000 time = 34744; result = 405000000450000000 time = 26954; result = 405000000450000000 time = 4033; result = 405000000450000000 time = 26657; result = 405000000450000000 time = 25855; result = 405000000450000000 time = 25031; result = 405000000450000000 Run 2: time = 4021; result = 405000000450000000 time = 21815; result = 405000000450000000 time = 34304; result = 405000000450000000 time = 32040; result = 405000000450000000 time = 3993; result = 405000000450000000 time = 24779; result = 405000000450000000 time = 29275; result = 405000000450000000 time = 32254; result = 405000000450000000
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;

namespace RangeTests
{
  class TestRange
  {
    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
      for(int l = 1; l <= 2; ++l)
      {
        const int N = 900000000;
        System.GC.Collect(2);
        // for loop
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            long accumulator = 0;
            for (int i = 1; i <= N; ++i)
            {
                accumulator += i;
            }

            sw.Stop();

            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, accumulator);
        }
        System.GC.Collect(2);

        //Enumerable.Range
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            var ret = Enumerable.Range(1, N).Aggregate(0, (long accumulator,int n) => accumulator + n);

            sw.Stop();
            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret);
        }
        System.GC.Collect(2);

        //self-made IEnumerable<int>
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            var ret = GetIntRange(1, N).Aggregate(0, (long accumulator,int n) => accumulator + n);

            sw.Stop();
            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret);
        }
        System.GC.Collect(2);

        //self-made adjusted IEnumerable<int>
        {
            Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            var ret = GetRange(1, N).Aggregate(0, (long accumulator,int n) => accumulator + n);

            sw.Stop();
            Console.WriteLine("time = {0}; result = {1}", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds, ret);
        }
        System.GC.Collect(2);
        Console.WriteLine();
    } }

    private static IEnumerable<int> GetIntRange(int start, int count)
    {
        int end = start + count;

        for (int i = start; i < end; ++i)
        {
            yield return i;
        }
    }

    private static IEnumerable<int> GetRange(int start, int count)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < count; ++i)
        {
            yield return start + i;
        }
    }
} }
csc.exe -optimize+ -debug- RangeTests.cs