刚才我读了一些关于vs的帖子List<T>LinkedList<T>，所以我决定自己对一些结构进行基准测试。我通过在前端/后端添加数据和删除数据来对、 和Stack<T>进行Queue<T>基准测试。这是基准测试结果：List<T>LinkedList<T>
Pushing to Stack... Time used: 7067 ticks
Poping from Stack... Time used: 2508 ticks
Enqueue to Queue... Time used: 7509 ticks
Dequeue from Queue... Time used: 2973 ticks
Insert to List at the front... Time used: 5211897 ticks
RemoveAt from List at the front... Time used: 5198380 ticks
Add to List at the end... Time used: 5691 ticks
RemoveAt from List at the end... Time used: 3484 ticks
AddFirst to LinkedList... Time used: 14057 ticks
RemoveFirst from LinkedList... Time used: 5132 ticks
AddLast to LinkedList... Time used: 9294 ticks
RemoveLast from LinkedList... Time used: 4414 ticks
代码：
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace Benchmarking
{
static class Collections
{
public static void run()
{
Random rand = new Random();
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
Stack<int> stack = new Stack<int>();
Queue<int> queue = new Queue<int>();
List<int> list1 = new List<int>();
List<int> list2 = new List<int>();
LinkedList<int> linkedlist1 = new LinkedList<int>();
LinkedList<int> linkedlist2 = new LinkedList<int>();
int dummy;
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "Pushing to Stack...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
stack.Push(rand.Next());
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "Poping from Stack...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dummy = stack.Pop();
dummy++;
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks\n", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "Enqueue to Queue...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
queue.Enqueue(rand.Next());
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "Dequeue from Queue...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dummy = queue.Dequeue();
dummy++;
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks\n", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "Insert to List at the front...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
list1.Insert(0, rand.Next());
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "RemoveAt from List at the front...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dummy = list1[0];
list1.RemoveAt(0);
dummy++;
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks\n", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "Add to List at the end...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
list2.Add(rand.Next());
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "RemoveAt from List at the end...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dummy = list2[list2.Count - 1];
list2.RemoveAt(list2.Count - 1);
dummy++;
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks\n", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "AddFirst to LinkedList...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
linkedlist1.AddFirst(rand.Next());
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "RemoveFirst from LinkedList...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dummy = linkedlist1.First.Value;
linkedlist1.RemoveFirst();
dummy++;
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks\n", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "AddLast to LinkedList...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
linkedlist2.AddLast(rand.Next());
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
sw.Reset();
Console.Write("{0,40}", "RemoveLast from LinkedList...");
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dummy = linkedlist2.Last.Value;
linkedlist2.RemoveLast();
dummy++;
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(" Time used: {0,9} ticks\n", sw.ElapsedTicks);
}
}
}
差异如此戏剧性！
如您所见，Stack<T>and的性能Queue<T>快速且具有可比性，这是意料之中的。
因为List<T>，使用前端和后端有很大的不同！令我惊讶的是，从末尾添加/删除的性能实际上与Stack<T>.
因为LinkedList<T>, 用前面的操作很快（-er 比List<T>），但到最后，用结尾的操作也非常慢。
所以......任何专家都可以解释：
- 使用
Stack<T>和结束的性能相似List<T>， - 使用前面和结尾的区别
List<T>，以及 使用 end 如此缓慢的原因因为使用 Linq 导致的编码错误LinkedList<T>（不适用，Last()，感谢 CodesInChaos）？
我想我知道为什么List<T>不能很好地处理前面......因为List<T>这样做时需要来回移动整个列表。如果我错了，请纠正我。
PS MySystem.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.Frequency是2435947，该程序针对 .NET 4 Client Profile 并在 Windows 7 Visual Studio 2010 上使用 C# 4.0 编译。