Do not trust the generic List!
September 28, 2007
Actually, that's a slightly misleading title. You should trust
List<T>, but you should also know its limitations. Here is one of the dangers of launching into using new functionality without reading all of the documentation. I've been having trouble because a client application produces thousands of reports. These reports are supposed to be sorted in a particular manner. I've been sorting and sorting in SQL, and going not paying enough attention to test well. Results in production? Not sorted.
So naturally I started properly stepping through the application, inspecting results from SQL and in code. What do I find? That SQL is returning the proper sort order, but then the ordering is getting lost. Why is that?
List<T> is basically what I remember as a vector in C++: an expandable, more flexible array. Its been a while since I wrote anything in C++, so I don't remember if vectors (in the STL) behave this way, but it seems like a pretty natural assumption that the generic
List would behave like arrays, with a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) type approach.
Better read the documentation carefully though: "The List is not guaranteed to be sorted. You must sort the List before performing operations (such as BinarySearch) that require the List to be sorted."
I was not a computer science major. I only took a few programming classes, so I don't always have a strong intuitive sense for memory allocation and usage. But now that I think about it, this makes perfect sense.
List<T> is the generic implementation of an
ArrayList. And as we know,
ArrayList "Implements the IList interface using an array whose size is dynamically increased as required."
Naturally we did talk about how arrays are stored in memory in both my intro Turbo Pascal and intro Java classes. So "dynamically" should have been a trigger to me: dynamic allocation means that the allocated memory is not likely to be continuous. Still, doesn't it make sense that the container in memory — that thing which holds the pointers to the memory blocks making up the "array" — would keep the pointers sorted in the order in which you input them, regardless of to whence they point? That sounds like a valid approach to me. But probably not the most efficient for returning the results. Spooling all the results back to the user (or cache) would take longer if returned FIFO than if the collection of pointers were organized according to memory placement rather than input sequence.
So what should I do? There should be two answers:
- Sort the results before using them, using
- find another generic that stores its info in a queue instead.
A quick search through the System.Collections.Generic namespace reveals that there is indeed a generic
Queue<T>, which "Represents a first-in, first-out collection of objects." So there you go: if you care about the order in which you added the entries into your collection, then use a
Queue instead of a
TrackBack URL: http://www.safnet.com/fcgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/34