In-Memory Query with C#2.0 and C#3.0

Why In Memory Query with C# 3.0 is Easier than in C# 2.0

DotNetKicks.com — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:24:43 GMT

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com

Community Convergence XXIV

Charlie Calvert's Community Blog — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:41:12 GMT

Recently my time has been taken up with a series of internal issues involving Beta1, C# Samples and various

re: In-Memory Query with C#2.0 and C#3.0

ElDog — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:33:47 GMT

About the speed - the queue is based on generic operators, all "smart things" are performed on compile time so, carefully speaking, the queue shouldn't be much slower than the first, straightforward implementation.

The Weekly Source Code 4

Scott Hanselman's Computer Zen — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:05:06 GMT

F#

LukeH's WebLog — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:57:37 GMT

A few weeks back, Soma blogged about an increased investment by the Microsoft Developer Division in the

F#, brought to you by Luke!

Don Syme's WebLog on F# and Other Research Projects — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:34:56 GMT

Luke Hoban is now full time as program manager on F#, and has just posted a short introduction about

F#, brought to you by Luke

Don Syme's WebLog on F# and Other Research Projects — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:35:25 GMT

Luke Hoban is now full time as program manager on F#, and has just posted a short introduction about

F#, brought to you by Luke

Noticias externas — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:06:50 GMT

Luke Hoban is now full time as program manager on F#, and has just posted a short introduction about

Example of querying collections in C# 2.0 and 3.0 with LINQ

dave^2=-1 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:55:13 GMT

LukeH has a good example of how simple and expressive LINQ queries can be compared to more traditional

re: In-Memory Query with C#2.0 and C#3.0

Justin.Th — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:09:46 GMT

Hi Luke,

I think there is a slight bug in the C# 2.0 implementation in that you are relying on the ordering of the Dictionary.Keys collection to be the same as what was inserted. This may work in practice, but according to the docs:

The order of the keys in the Dictionary<(Of <(TKey, TValue>)>).KeyCollection is unspecified

Perhaps you should use a SortedDictionary and ditch the sort on the list of MethodInfos?

I suppose it just goes to further demonstrate the beauty of C# 3.0: the code is terser, the objective of the code is more obvious and it is easier to get right!

Propecia sexual side effe.

Propecia and online drugs stores. — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:32:03 GMT

Propecia. Cheap propecia. Propecia online uk.

re: In-Memory Query with C#2.0 and C#3.0

graffic — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:10:41 GMT

The second implementation is much slower. But let's explain why.

LINQ was made to embed SQL into the code. Therefore it was supposed to use all the database "good things" to do the job.

For me the only database good things are "indexes". The way to access one record in a million in less than 0.1 seconds. Therefore when LINQ is translated in a SQL query of an indexed database we obtain:

1. good performance

2. good readability.

But some times we need to handle in memory data. In that case we thing "hey! let's use linq again" But think now "who is gonna support your efforts when making queries?". The answer is nobody.

There is no special software for LINQ to objects. Then what linq does is to "sweep" the data structure collecting members that match your query.

Of course this is slow as hell if you compare it with a dictionary.

If you're gonna do it once. Is ok to wait because we will suffer it only once. But if the query is in a loop. You're delete the code after the second run because is just too much time.