Develop Reference

Is HashSet<T> thread safe as a value of ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, HashSet<T>>?

If I have the following code:
var dictionary = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, HashSet<string>>();
foreach (var user in users)
{
if (!dictionary.ContainsKey(user.GroupId))
{
dictionary.TryAdd(user.GroupId, new HashSet<string>());
}
dictionary[user.GroupId].Add(user.Id.ToString());
}
Is the act of adding an item into the HashSet inherently thread safe because HashSet is a value property of the concurrent dictionary?

No. Putting a container in a thread-safe container does not make the inner container thread safe.
dictionary[user.GroupId].Add(user.Id.ToString());
is calling HashSet's add after retrieving it from the ConcurrentDictionary. If this GroupId is looked up from two threads at once this would break your code with strange failure modes. I saw the result of one of my teammates making the mistake of not locking his sets, and it wasn't pretty.
This is a plausible solution. I'd do something different myself but this is closer to your code.
if (!dictionary.ContainsKey(user.GroupId))
{
dictionary.TryAdd(user.GroupId, new HashSet<string>());
}
var groups = dictionary[user.GroupId];
lock(groups)
{
groups.Add(user.Id.ToString());
}

No, the collection (the dictionary itself) is thread-safe, not whatever you put in it. You have a couple of options:
Use AddOrUpdate as #TheGeneral mentioned:
dictionary.AddOrUpdate(user.GroupId, new HashSet<string>(), (k,v) => v.Add(user.Id.ToString());
Use a concurrent collection, like the ConcurrentBag<T>:
ConcurrentDictionary<int, ConcurrentBag<string>>
Whenever you are building the Dictionary, as in your code, you should be better off accessing it as little as possible. Think of something like this:
var dictionary = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, ConcurrentBag<string>>();
var grouppedUsers = users.GroupBy(u => u.GroupId);
foreach (var group in grouppedUsers)
{
// get the bag from the dictionary or create it if it doesn't exist
var currentBag = dictionary.GetOrAdd(group.Key, new ConcurrentBag<string>());
// load it with the users required
foreach (var user in group)
{
if (!currentBag.Contains(user.Id.ToString())
{
currentBag.Add(user.Id.ToString());
}
}
}
If you actually want a built-in concurrent HashSet-like collection, you'd need to use ConcurrentDictionary<int, ConcurrentDictionary<string, string>>, and care either about the key or the value from the inner one.

C# Update entries of a dictionary in parallel?

No idea if this is possible, but rather than iterate over a dictionary and modify entries based on some condition, sequentially, I was wondering if it is possible to do this in parallel?
For example, rather than:
Dictionary<int, byte> dict = new Dictionary<int, byte>();
for (int i = 0; i < dict.Count; i++)
{
dict[i] = 255;
}
I'd like something like:
Dictionary<int, byte> dict = new Dictionary<int, byte>();
dict.Parallel(x=>x, <condition>, <function_to_apply>);
I realise that in order to build the indices for modifying the dict, we would need to iterate and build a list of ints... but I was wondering if there was some sneaky way to do this that would be both faster and more concise than the first example.
I could of course iterate through the dict and for each entry, spawn a new thread and run some code, return the value and build a new, updated dictionary, but that seems really overkill.
The reason I'm curious is that the <function_to_apply> might be expensive.

I could of course iterate through the dict and for each entry, spawn a new thread and run some code, return the value and build a new, updated dictionary, but that seems really overkill.
Assuming you don't need the dictionary while it's rebuilt it's not that much:
var newDictionary = dictionary.AsParallel()
.Select(kvp =>
/* do whatever here as long as
it works with the local kvp variable
and not the original dict */
new
{
Key = kvp.Key,
NewValue = function_to_apply(kvp.Key, kvp.Value)
})
.ToDictionary(x => x.Key,
x => x.NewValue);
Then lock whatever sync object you need and swap the new and old dictionaries.

First of all, I mostly agree with others recommending ConcurrentDictionary<> - it is designed to be thread-safe.
But if you are adventurous coder ;) and performance it super-critical for you, you could sometimes try doing what you (I suppose) is trying to do in case no new keys are added and no keys are removed from dictionary during your parallel manipulations:
int keysNumber = 1000000;
Dictionary<int, string> d = Enumerable.Range(1, keysNumber)
.ToDictionary(x => x, x => (string)null);
Parallel.For(1, keysNumber + 1, k => { d[k] = "Value" + k; /*Some complex logic might go here*/ });
To verify data consistency after these operations you can add:
Debug.Assert(d.Count == keysNumber);
for (int i = 1; i <= keysNumber; i++)
{
Debug.Assert(d[i] == "Value" + i);
}
Console.WriteLine("Successful");
WHY IT WORKS:
Basically we have created dictionary in advance from SINGLE main thread and then popullated it in parallel. What allows us to do that is that current Dictionary implementation (Microsoft does not guarantee that, but most likely won't ever change) defines it's structure solely on keys, and values are just assigned to corresponding cells. Since each key is being assigned a new value from single thread we do not have race condition, and since navigating the hashtable concurrently does not alter it, everything works fine.
But you should be really careful with such code and have very good reasons not to use ConcurrentDictionary.
PS: My main idea is not even a "hack" of using Dicrionary concurrently, but to draw attention that not always every data structure need to be concurrent. I saw ConcurrentDictionary<int, ConcurrentStack<...>>, while each stack object in dictionary could be accessed only from single thread and that is an overkill and doesn't make your performance better. Just keep in mind what are you affecting and what can go wrong with multithreading scenarios.

How is this parallel for not processing all elements?

I've created this normal for loop:
public static Dictionary<string,Dictionary<string,bool>> AnalyzeFiles(IEnumerable<string> files, IEnumerable<string> dependencies)
{
Dictionary<string, Dictionary<string, bool>> filesAnalyzed = new Dictionary<string, Dictionary<string, bool>>();
foreach (var item in files)
{
filesAnalyzed[item] = AnalyzeFile(item, dependencies);
}
return filesAnalyzed;
}
The loop just checks if each file that is in the variable "files" has all the dependencies specified in the variable "dependencies".
the "files" variable should only have unique elements because it is used as the key for the result, a dictionary, but I check this before calling the method.
The for loop works correctly and all elements are processed in single thread, so I wanted to increase the performance by changing to a parallel for loop, the problem is that not all the elements that come from the "files" variable are being processed in the parallel for (in my test case I get 30 elements instead of 53).
I've tried to increase the timespan, or to remove all the "Monitor.TryEnter" code and use just a lock(filesAnalyzed) but still got the same result
I'm not very familiar with the paraller for, so it might be something in the syntax that I'm using.
public static Dictionary<string,Dictionary<string,bool>> AnalyzeFiles(IEnumerable<string> files, IEnumerable<string> dependencies)
{
var filesAnalyzed = new Dictionary<string, Dictionary<string, bool>>();
Parallel.For<KeyValuePair<string, Dictionary<string, bool>>>(
//start index
0,
//end index
files.Count(),
// initialization?
()=>new KeyValuePair<string, Dictionary<string, bool>>(),
(index, loop, result) =>
{
var temp = new KeyValuePair<string, Dictionary<string, bool>>(
files.ElementAt(index),
AnalyzeFile(files.ElementAt(index), dependencies));
return temp;
}
,
//finally
(x) =>
{
if (Monitor.TryEnter(filesAnalyzed, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 30)))
{
try
{
filesAnalyzed.Add(x.Key, x.Value);
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(filesAnalyzed);
}
}
}
);
return filesAnalyzed;
}
any feedback is appreciated

Assuming the code inside AnalyzeFile and dependencies is thread safe, how about something like this:
var filesAnalyzed = files
.AsParellel()
.Select(x => new{Item = x, File = AnalyzeFile(x, dependencies)})
.ToDictionary(x => x.Item, x=> x.File);

Rewrite your normal loop this way:
Parallel.Foreach(files, item=>
{
filesAnalyzed[item] = AnalyzeFile(item, dependencies);
});
You should also use ConcurrentDictionary except Dictionary to make all process thread-safe

You can simplify your code a lot if you use Parallel LINQ instead :
public static Dictionary<string,Dictionary<string,bool>> AnalyzeFiles(IEnumerable<string> files, IEnumerable<string> dependencies)
{
var filesAnalyzed = ( from item in files.AsParallel()
let result=AnalyzeFile(item, dependencies)
select (Item:item,Result:result)
).ToDictionary( it=>it.Item,it=>it.Result)
return filesAnalyzed;
}
I used tuple syntax in this case to avoid noise. It also cuts down on allocations.
Using method syntax, the same can be written as :
var filesAnalyzed = files.AsParallel()
.Select(item=> (item, AnalyzeFile(item, dependencies)))
.ToDictionary( it=>it.Item,it=>it.Result)
Dictionary<> isn't thread-safe for modification. If you wanted to use Parallel.ForEach without locking, you'd have to use ConcurrentDictionary
var filesAnalyzed = ConcurrentDictionary<string,Dictionary<string,bool>>;
Parallel.ForEach(files,file => {
filesAnalyzed[item] = AnalyzeFile(item, dependencies);
});
In this case at least, there is no benefit in using Parallel over PLINQ.

Hard to say what is exactly going wrong without debugging the code. Just looking at it though I would have used a ConcurrentDictionary for filesAnalyzed variable instead of a normal `Dictionary and get rid of the Monitor.
I would also check whether same key already exists in the dictionary filesAnalyzed, it could be that you are trying to add a kvp withthe key that is added to the dictionary already.

How to multithread a process method

I am trying to using multi threading to process a list of results faster. I tried using a parallel for each but when the process method is run I do not recieve the correct results.
private IEnumerable<BulkProcessorResult> GetProccessResults(List<Foo> Foos)
{
var listOfFooLists = CreateListOfFooLists(Foos);
var bulkProcessorResults = new List<BulkProcessorResult>();
Parallel.ForEach(listOfFooLists, FooList =>
{
foreach (var Foo in FooList)
{
var processClaimResult = _processor.Process(Foo);
var bulkProcessorResult = new BulkProcessorResult()
{
ClaimStatusId = (int) processClaimResult.ClaimStatusEnum,
Property1 = Foo.Property1
};
bulkProcessorResults.Add(bulkProcessorResult);
}
});
return bulkProcessorResults;
}
If I use a normal forEach I get the correct output. If I use the above code I get status' of all 2 when there should be three with the status of 1 and one status of 3.
I am really new to threading so any help would be great.

The most obvious issue is that you're working with multiple threads (okay, this is somewhat hidden by calling Parallel.ForEach, but you should be aware that it achieves parallelism by using multiple threads/tasks) but you're using a List<T>, which isn't a thread-safe collection class:
A List<T> can support multiple readers concurrently, as long as the collection is not modified. Enumerating through a collection is intrinsically not a thread-safe procedure. In the rare case where an enumeration contends with one or more write accesses, the only way to ensure thread safety is to lock the collection during the entire enumeration. To allow the collection to be accessed by multiple threads for reading and writing, you must implement your own synchronization
Rather than implementing your own synchronization, though, and whilst not altering much else in your code, I would switch to using a ConcurrentQueue<T>:
private IEnumerable<BulkProcessorResult> GetProccessResults(List<Foo> Foos)
{
var listOfFooLists = CreateListOfFooLists(Foos);
var bulkProcessorResults = new ConcurrentQueue<BulkProcessorResult>();
Parallel.ForEach(listOfFooLists, FooList =>
{
foreach (var Foo in FooList)
{
var processClaimResult = _processor.Process(Foo);
var bulkProcessorResult = new BulkProcessorResult()
{
ClaimStatusId = (int) processClaimResult.ClaimStatusEnum,
Property1 = Foo.Property1
};
bulkProcessorResults.Enqueue(bulkProcessorResult);
}
});
return bulkProcessorResults;
}

How about treating the entire thing as a Parallel Linq query?
private IEnumerable<BulkProcessorResult> GetProccessResults(List<Foo> Foos)
{
var listOfFooLists = CreateListOfFooLists(Foos);
return listOfFooLists.AsParallel()
.SelectMany(FooList => FooList)
.Select(Foo =>
new BulProcessorResult {
ClaimStatusId = (int)_processor.Process(Foo),
Property1 = Foo.Property1
}).ToList();
}

Using the Concurrent Dictionary - Thread Safe Collection Modification

Recently I was running into the following exception when using a generic dictionary
An InvalidOperationException has occurred. A collection was modified
I realized that this error was primarily because of thread safety issues on the static dictionary I was using.
A little background: I currently have an application which has 3 different methods that are related to this issue.
Method A iterates through the dictionary using foreach and returns a value.
Method B adds data to the dictionary.
Method C changes the value of the key in the dictionary.
Sometimes while iterating through the dictionary, data is also being added, which is the cause of this issue. I keep getting this exception in the foreach part of my code where I iterate over the contents of the dictionary. In order to resolve this issue, I replaced the generic dictionary with the ConcurrentDictionary and here are the details of what I did.
Aim : My main objective is to completely remove the exception
For method B (which adds a new key to the dictionary) I replaced .Add with TryAdd
For method C (which updates the value of the dictionary) I did not make any changes. A rough sketch of the code is as follows :
static public int ChangeContent(int para)
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, CustObject> pair in static_container)
{
if (pair.Value.propA != para ) //Pending cancel
{
pair.Value.data_id = prim_id; //I am updating the content
return 0;
}
}
return -2;
}
For method A - I am simply iterating over the dictionary and this is where the running code stops (in debug mode) and Visual Studio informs me that this is where the error occured.The code I am using is similar to the following
static public CustObject RetrieveOrderDetails(int para)
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, CustObject> pair in static_container)
{
if (pair.Value.cust_id.Equals(symbol))
{
if (pair.Value.OrderStatus != para)
{
return pair.Value; //Found
}
}
}
return null; //Not found
}
Are these changes going to resolve the exception that I am getting.
Edit:
It states on this page that the method GetEnumerator allows you to traverse through the elements in parallel with writes (although it may be outdated). Isnt that the same as using foreach ?

For modification of elements, one option is to manually iterate the dictionary using a for loop, e.g.:
Dictionary<string, string> test = new Dictionary<string, string>();
int dictionaryLength = test.Count();
for (int i = 0; i < dictionaryLength; i++)
{
test[test.ElementAt(i).Key] = "Some new content";
}
Be weary though, that if you're also adding to the Dictionary, you must increment dictionaryLength (or decrement it if you move elements) appropriately.
Depending on what exactly you're doing, and if order matters, you may wish to use a SortedDictionary instead.
You could extend this by updating dictionaryLength explicitly by recalling test.Count() at each iteration, and also use an additional list containing a list of keys you've already modified and so on and so forth if there's a danger of missing any, it really depends what you're doing as much as anything and what your needs are.
You can further get a list of keys using test.Keys.ToList(), that option would work as follows:
Dictionary<string, string> test = new Dictionary<string, string>();
List<string> keys = test.Keys.ToList();
foreach (string key in keys)
{
test[key] = "Some new content";
}
IEnumerable<string> newKeys = test.Keys.ToList().Except(keys);
if(newKeys.Count() > 0)
// Do it again or whatever.
Note that I've also shown an example of how to find out whether any new keys were added between you getting the initial list of keys, and completing iteration such that you could then loop round and handle the new keys.
Hopefully one of these options will suit (or you may even want to mix and match- for loop on the keys for example updating that as you go instead of the length) - as I say, it's as much about what precisely you're trying to do as much as anything.

Before doing foreach() try out copying container to a new instance
var unboundContainer = static_container.ToList();
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, CustObject> pair in unboundContainer)
Also I think updating Value property is not right from thread safety perspectives, refactor your code to use TryUpdate() instead.