c# - How do I collect return values from Parallel.ForEach?

Question

I'm calling a slow webservice in parallel. Things were great until I realized I need to get some information back from the service. But I don't see where to get the values back. I can't write to the database, HttpContext.Current appears to be null inside of a method called using Parallel.ForEach

Below is a sample program (in your mind, please imagine a slow web service instead of a string concatenation)

using System;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        WordMaker m = new WordMaker();
        m.MakeIt();
    }
    public class WordMaker
    {
        public void MakeIt()
        {
            string[] words = { "ack", "ook" };
            ParallelLoopResult result = Parallel.ForEach(words, word => AddB(word));
            Console.WriteLine("Where did my results go?");
            Console.ReadKey();
        }
        public string AddB(string word)
        {
            return "b" + word;
        }
    }

}

Answer 1

You've discarded it in here.

ParallelLoopResult result = Parallel.ForEach(words, word => AddB(word));

You probably want something like,

ParallelLoopResult result = Parallel.ForEach(words, word =>
{
    string result = AddB(word);
    // do something with result
});

If you want some sort of collection at the end of this, consider using one of the collections under System.Collections.Concurrent, like ConcurrentBag

ConcurrentBag<string> resultCollection = new ConcurrentBag<string>();
ParallelLoopResult result = Parallel.ForEach(words, word =>
{
    resultCollection.Add(AddB(word));
});

// Do something with the result

Answer 2

Your may consider using AsParallel extension method of IEnumerable, it will take care of the concurrency for you and collect the results.

words.AsParallel().Select(AddB).ToArray()

Synchronisation (e.g. locks or concurrent collections that use locks) are usually bottleneck of concurrent algorithms. The best is to avoid synchronisation as much as possible. I am guessing that AsParallel uses something smarter like putting all the items produced on single thread into a local non-concurrent collection and then combining these at the end.

Answer 3

Do not use ConcurrentBag to collect results as it is slower. Use local lock instead.

var resultCollection = new List<string>();
object localLockObject = new object();

Parallel.ForEach<string, List<string>>(
      words,
      () => { return new List<string>(); },
      (word, state, localList) =>
      {
         localList.Add(AddB(word));
         return localList;
      },
      (finalResult) => { lock (localLockObject) resultCollection.AddRange(finalResult); }
); 

// Do something with resultCollection here

Answer 4

This seems safe, fast, and simple:

    public string[] MakeIt() {
        string[] words = { "ack", "ook" };
        string[] results = new string[words.Length];
        ParallelLoopResult result =
            Parallel.For(0, words.Length, i => results[i] = AddB(words[i]));
        return results;
    }

Answer 5

How about something like this:

public class WordContainer
{
    public WordContainer(string word)
    {
        Word = word;
    }

    public string Word { get; private set; }
    public string Result { get; set; }
}

public class WordMaker
{
    public void MakeIt()
    {
        string[] words = { "ack", "ook" };
        List<WordContainer> containers = words.Select(w => new WordContainer(w)).ToList();

        Parallel.ForEach(containers, AddB);

        //containers.ForEach(c => Console.WriteLine(c.Result));
        foreach (var container in containers)
        {
            Console.WriteLine(container.Result);
        }

        Console.ReadKey();
    }

    public void AddB(WordContainer container)
    {
        container.Result = "b" + container.Word;
    }
}

I believe the locking or concurrent objects isn't necessary unless you need the results to interact with one another (like you were computing a sum or combining all the words). In this case ForEach neatly breaks your original list up and hands each thread its own object that it can manipulate all it wants without worrying about interfering with the other threads.

Answer 6

In the particular cases where the size of the collection is know upfront - which is often the case in practice - an array can be use instead of an expensive concurrent collection. There is no risk of collision since each loop accesses its own slot in the ouputs array. As a bonus outputs are stored with the same order as inputs:

const int NB_WORDS = 1000;
var inputs = new string[NB_WORDS];
for(var i= 0; i < NB_WORDS; i++) { inputs[i] = i.ToString(); }

var outputs = new string[NB_WORDS];

Parallel.For(0, NB_WORDS, index => {
   string word = inputs[index];
   string result = word + word; // Operation on word
   outputs[index] = result; // No need of a concurrent collection to store the result!
});

Debug.Assert(outputs.All(result => !string.IsNullOrEmpty(result)));