Winfrom ComboBox中的性能探索
在为Control维护元素列表的过程中,会不可避免的造成性能损耗,我们接下来要探究的就是哪种方式才是我们的最优解。
方案比较
以ComboBox为例,常见的方式一共有两种:Add、AddRange。
Add
List vs = new List();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
vs.Add(i);
}
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
comboBox1.Items.Add(vs);
sw.Stop();
TimeSpan ts = sw.Elapsed;
Console.WriteLine("DateTime costed for Shuffle function is: {0}ms", ts.TotalMilliseconds);
DateTime costed for Shuffle function is: 44.9402ms
AddRange
object[] obj = new object[100];
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
obj[i] = i;
}
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
comboBox1.Items.AddRange(obj);
sw.Stop();
TimeSpan ts = sw.Elapsed;
Console.WriteLine("DateTime costed for Shuffle function is: {0}ms", ts.TotalMilliseconds);
DateTime costed for Shuffle function is: 25.6242ms
试验比较粗糙,但是也反映了一些基本结论:AddRange要比Add的性能高出一些。
探源
public void AddRange(object[] items) {
owner.CheckNoDataSource();
owner.BeginUpdate();
try
{
AddRangeInternal(items);
}
finally
{
owner.EndUpdate();
}
}
internal void AddRangeInternal(IList items) {
if (items == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("items");
}
foreach (object item in items) {
// adding items one-by-one for performance (especially for sorted combobox)
// we can not rely on ArrayList.Sort since its worst case complexity is n*n
// AddInternal is based on BinarySearch and ensures n*log(n) complexity
AddInternal(item);
}
if (owner.AutoCompleteSource == AutoCompleteSource.ListItems)
{
owner.SetAutoComplete(false, false);
}
}
我们可以看到,对于上面的结论,微软给了我们一个解释:因为Add方法的原理是基于ArrayList,它的性能最低情况为n*n。而AddRange的内部原理则是基于二分法,最低性能为n*log(n),因此当需维护项较多时,应优先考虑使用AddRange进行维护。