When should I use the HashSet<T> type?
When should I use the HashSet<T> type?
I am exploring the HashSet<T>
type, but I don't understand where it stands in collections.
Can one use it to replace a List<T>
? I imagine the performance of a HashSet<T>
to be better, but I couldn't see individual access to its elements.
Is it only for enumeration?
回答1
The important thing about HashSet<T>
is right there in the name: it's a set. The only things you can do with a single set is to establish what its members are, and to check whether an item is a member.
Asking if you can retrieve a single element (e.g. set[45]
) is misunderstanding the concept of the set. There's no such thing as the 45th element of a set. Items in a set have no ordering. The sets {1, 2, 3} and {2, 3, 1} are identical in every respect because they have the same membership, and membership is all that matters.
It's somewhat dangerous to iterate over a HashSet<T>
because doing so imposes an order on the items in the set. That order is not really a property of the set. You should not rely on it. If ordering of the items in a collection is important to you, that collection isn't a set.
Sets are really limited and with unique members. On the other hand, they're really fast.
评论:
回答2
Here's a real example of where I use a HashSet<string>
:
Part of my syntax highlighter for UnrealScript files is a new feature that highlights Doxygen-style comments. I need to be able to tell if a @
or \
command is valid to determine whether to show it in gray (valid) or red (invalid). I have a HashSet<string>
of all the valid commands, so whenever I hit a @xxx
token in the lexer, I use validCommands.Contains(tokenText)
as my O(1) validity check. I really don't care about anything except existence of the command in the set of valid commands. Lets look at the alternatives I faced:
Dictionary<string, ?>
: What type do I use for the value? The value is meaningless since I'm just going to useContainsKey
. Note: Before .NET 3.0 this was the only choice for O(1) lookups -HashSet<T>
was added for 3.0 and extended to implementISet<T>
for 4.0.List<string>
: If I keep the list sorted, I can useBinarySearch
, which is O(log n) (didn't see this fact mentioned above). However, since my list of valid commands is a fixed list that never changes, this will never be more appropriate than simply...string[]
: Again,Array.BinarySearch
gives O(log n) performance. If the list is short, this could be the best performing option. It always has less space overhead thanHashSet
,Dictionary
, orList
. Even withBinarySearch
, it's not faster for large sets, but for small sets it'd be worth experimenting. Mine has several hundred items though, so I passed on this.
作者:Chuck Lu GitHub |
HashSet
is not defined, so don't rely on the iterator's order. If you iterate the set because you are doing something against the items in the set, that is not dangerous unless you are relying on anything related to order. ASortedSet
has all the properties of theHashSet
plus order, howeverSortedSet
does not derive fromHashSet
; rephrased, a SortedSet is an ordered collection of distinct objects.