在 C# 中复制数组的任何更快的方法? [英] Any faster way of copying arrays in C#?
问题描述
我有三个数组需要组合成一个三维数组.以下代码显示性能资源管理器中的缓慢性能.有没有更快的解决方案?
I have three arrays that need to be combined in one three-dimension array. The following code shows slow performance in Performance Explorer. Is there a faster solution?
for (int i = 0; i < sortedIndex.Length; i++) {
if (i < num_in_left)
{
// add instance to the left child
leftnode[i, 0] = sortedIndex[i];
leftnode[i, 1] = sortedInstances[i];
leftnode[i, 2] = sortedLabels[i];
}
else
{
// add instance to the right child
rightnode[i-num_in_left, 0] = sortedIndex[i];
rightnode[i-num_in_left, 1] = sortedInstances[i];
rightnode[i-num_in_left, 2] = sortedLabels[i];
}
}
更新:
我实际上正在尝试执行以下操作:
I'm actually trying to do the following:
//given three 1d arrays
double[] sortedIndex, sortedInstances, sortedLabels;
// copy them over to a 3d array (forget about the rightnode for now)
double[] leftnode = new double[sortedIndex.Length, 3];
// some magic happens here so that
leftnode = {sortedIndex, sortedInstances, sortedLabels};
推荐答案
使用 缓冲区.块复制.它的全部目的是快速执行(请参阅缓冲区):
Use Buffer.BlockCopy. Its entire purpose is to perform fast (see Buffer):
与 System.Array 类中的类似方法相比,此类为操作原始类型提供了更好的性能.
This class provides better performance for manipulating primitive types than similar methods in the System.Array class.
诚然,我还没有做过任何基准测试,但这就是文档.它也适用于多维数组;只需确保您始终指定要复制的字节,而不是多少个元素,并且您正在处理原始数组.
Admittedly, I haven't done any benchmarks, but that's the documentation. It also works on multidimensional arrays; just make sure that you're always specifying how many bytes to copy, not how many elements, and also that you're working on a primitive array.
此外,我还没有对此进行测试,但是如果您将委托绑定到 System.Buffer.memcpyimpl
可能能够从系统中挤出更多性能> 并直接调用.签名是:
Also, I have not tested this, but you might be able to squeeze a bit more performance out of the system if you bind a delegate to System.Buffer.memcpyimpl
and call that directly. The signature is:
internal static unsafe void memcpyimpl(byte* src, byte* dest, int len)
它确实需要指针,但我相信它已针对可能的最高速度进行了优化,因此我认为没有比这更快的方法,即使您手头有组装.
It does require pointers, but I believe it's optimized for the highest speed possible, and so I don't think there's any way to get faster than that, even if you had assembly at hand.
更新:
由于要求(并满足我的好奇心),我对此进行了测试:
Due to requests (and to satisfy my curiosity), I tested this:
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Reflection;
unsafe delegate void MemCpyImpl(byte* src, byte* dest, int len);
static class Temp
{
//There really should be a generic CreateDelegate<T>() method... -___-
static MemCpyImpl memcpyimpl = (MemCpyImpl)Delegate.CreateDelegate(
typeof(MemCpyImpl), typeof(Buffer).GetMethod("memcpyimpl",
BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.NonPublic));
const int COUNT = 32, SIZE = 32 << 20;
//Use different buffers to help avoid CPU cache effects
static byte[]
aSource = new byte[SIZE], aTarget = new byte[SIZE],
bSource = new byte[SIZE], bTarget = new byte[SIZE],
cSource = new byte[SIZE], cTarget = new byte[SIZE];
static unsafe void TestUnsafe()
{
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
fixed (byte* pSrc = aSource)
fixed (byte* pDest = aTarget)
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
memcpyimpl(pSrc, pDest, SIZE);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Buffer.memcpyimpl: {0:N0} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
}
static void TestBlockCopy()
{
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
Buffer.BlockCopy(bSource, 0, bTarget, 0, SIZE);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Buffer.BlockCopy: {0:N0} ticks",
sw.ElapsedTicks);
}
static void TestArrayCopy()
{
Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
Array.Copy(cSource, 0, cTarget, 0, SIZE);
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Array.Copy: {0:N0} ticks", sw.ElapsedTicks);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
TestArrayCopy();
TestBlockCopy();
TestUnsafe();
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
结果:
Buffer.BlockCopy: 469,151 ticks
Array.Copy: 469,972 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 496,541 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 421,011 ticks
Array.Copy: 430,694 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 410,933 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 425,112 ticks
Array.Copy: 420,839 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 411,520 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 424,329 ticks
Array.Copy: 420,288 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 405,598 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 422,410 ticks
Array.Copy: 427,826 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 414,394 ticks
现在更改顺序:
Array.Copy: 419,750 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 408,919 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 419,774 ticks
Array.Copy: 430,529 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 412,148 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 424,900 ticks
Array.Copy: 424,706 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 427,861 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 421,929 ticks
Array.Copy: 420,556 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 421,541 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 436,430 ticks
Array.Copy: 435,297 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 432,505 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 441,493 ticks
现在再次更改顺序:
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 430,874 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 429,730 ticks
Array.Copy: 432,746 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 415,943 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 423,809 ticks
Array.Copy: 428,703 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 421,270 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 428,262 ticks
Array.Copy: 434,940 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 423,506 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 427,220 ticks
Array.Copy: 431,606 ticks
Buffer.memcpyimpl: 422,900 ticks
Buffer.BlockCopy: 439,280 ticks
Array.Copy: 432,649 ticks
或者,换句话说:他们非常有竞争力;作为一般规则,memcpyimpl
是最快的,但不必担心.
or, in other words: they're very competitive; as a general rule, memcpyimpl
is fastest, but it's not necessarily worth worrying about.
这篇关于在 C# 中复制数组的任何更快的方法?的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持IT屋!