Asymptotic complexity of .NET collection classes

问题

Are there any resources about the asymptotic complexity (big-O and the rest) of methods of .NET collection classes (Dictionary<K,V>, List<T> etc...)?

I know that the C5 library's documentation includes some information about it (example), but I'm interested in standard .NET collections too... (and PowerCollections' information would also be nice).

回答1:

MSDN Lists these:

Dictionary<,>
List<>
SortedList<,> (edit: wrong link; here's the generic version)
SortedDictionary<,>

etc. For example:

The SortedList(TKey, TValue) generic class is a binary search tree with O(log n) retrieval, where n is the number of elements in the dictionary. In this, it is similar to the SortedDictionary(TKey, TValue) generic class. The two classes have similar object models, and both have O(log n) retrieval. Where the two classes differ is in memory use and speed of insertion and removal:

SortedList(TKey, TValue) uses less memory than SortedDictionary(TKey, TValue).

SortedDictionary(TKey, TValue) has faster insertion and removal operations for unsorted data, O(log n) as opposed to O(n) for SortedList(TKey, TValue).

If the list is populated all at once from sorted data, SortedList(TKey, TValue) is faster than SortedDictionary(TKey, TValue).

回答2:

This page summarises some of the time comlplexities for various collection types with Java, though they should be exactly the same for .NET.

I've taken the tables from that page and altered/expanded them for the .NET framework. See also the MSDN pages for SortedDictionary and SortedList, which detail the time complexities required for various operations.

Searching

Type of Search/Collection Types           Complexity  Comments
Linear search Array/ArrayList/LinkedList  O(N)        Unsorted data.
Binary search sorted Array/ArrayList/     O(log N)    Requires sorted data.
Search Hashtable/Dictionary<T>            O(1)        Uses hash function.
Binary search SortedDictionary/SortedKey  O(log N)    Sorting is automated.

Retrieval and Insertion

Operation         Array/ArrayList  LinkedList  SortedDictionary  SortedList
Access back       O(1)             O(1)        O(log N)          O(log N)
Access front      O(1)             O(1)        N.A.              N.A.
Access middle     O(1)             O(N)        N.A.              N.A.
Insert at back    O(1)             O(1)        O(log N)          O(N)
Insert at front   O(N)             O(1)        N.A.              N.A.
Insert in middle  O(N)             O(1)        N.A.              N.A.

Deletion should have the same complexity as insertion for the associated collection.

SortedList has a few notable peculiarities for insertion and retrieval.

Insertion (Add method):

This method is an O(n) operation for unsorted data, where n is Count. It is an O(log n) operation if the new element is added at the end of the list. If insertion causes a resize, the operation is O(n).

Retrieval (Item property):

Retrieving the value of this property is an O(log n) operation, where n is Count. Setting the property is an O(log n) operation if the key is already in the SortedList<(Of <(TKey, TValue>)>). If the key is not in the list, setting the property is an O(n) operation for unsorted data, or O(log n) if the new element is added at the end of the list. If insertion causes a resize, the operation is O(n).

Note that ArrayList is equivalent to List<T> in terms of the complexity of all operations.

回答3:

I don't know in general (the other answer just posted perhaps gives you exactly what you're after) - but you can reflect this and other methods of course using ILSpy (a little awkward with FSharp code, true) and this eventually yields this function as C#:

internal static a maximumElementAux<a>(SetTree<a> s, a n)
{
  while (true)
  {
    SetTree<a> setTree = s;
    if (setTree is SetTree<a>.SetOne)
    {
      break;
    }
    if (setTree == null)
    {
      return n;
    }
    SetTree<a>.SetNode setNode = (SetTree<a>.SetNode)s;
    SetTree<a> arg_23_0 = setNode.item3;
    n = setNode.item1;
    s = arg_23_0;
  }
  return ((SetTree<a>.SetOne)s).item;
  return n;
}

Okay so this is not exactly 'proper' code in C# terms - but the presence of the while(true) loop implies it can't be O(1) at least; as for what it actually is... well, my head hurts too much to find out :)

回答4:

This page presents short notes about some key pros & cons for most .NET Collections :

http://geekswithblogs.net/BlackRabbitCoder/archive/2011/06/16/c.net-fundamentals-choosing-the-right-collection-class.aspx

回答5:

There's no such thing as "complexity of collection classes". Rather, different operations on these collections have different complexities. For instance, adding an element to a Dictionary<K, V>...

...approaches an O(1) operation. If the capacity must be increased to accommodate the new element, this method becomes an O(n) operation, where n is Count.

Whereas retrieving an element from a Dictionary<K, V>...

...approaches an O(1) operation.

回答6:

The documentation says it is build on a binary tree, and does not mention tracking the maximum element. If the documentation is correct, that means it should be O( log n). There used to be at least one mistake in the collections documentation (referring to an array-backed data structure as a binary search tree), but that has been corrected.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6313896/net-framework-time-complexity-in-the-documentation

标签

.net

collections

big-o

asymptotic-complexity