I am currently struggling to create a dictionary. I want to create it so that it can be used in multiple situations. However, these situations vary from key and value types. So while you normally do:
Dictionary<int, string> Something = new Dictionary<int, string>();
I want to do something like:
Dictionary<variable1, variable2> ..............
Doesn't matter much what variable1 is. It can be a string, that stores 'string', or 'int' as value. I could also use variable1.getType() to determine the type. Either way would work for me. But the way I did above, well, that is just incorrect. There must be another way to set the key and value type based on variables... right?
Something just shoot into my head, to use if's to check what the type is, and based on the type make the dictionary use that type. But with the amount of types, it's going to be a lot of if's, and I feel like there has to be a better way.
Searching hasn't helped me much. Well I learned some other things, but no solution to my problem. In every single case, dictionary TKey and TValue has been set manually. While I want to set them, with a variable that I take from some source.
There must be another way to set the key and value type based on
variables... right?
Yes, there is. You can make a helper method that creates a dictionary, example:
public static Dictionary<K, V> CreateDictionaryFor<K, V>(K key, V value)
{
return new Dictionary<K, V>();
}
Then, you can use it with variable1 and variable2:
var dictionary = CreateDictionaryFor(variable1, variable2);
You can try doing Dictionary<object, object>.
That way you can pass whatever you need to pass and check the type as needed.
var dict = new Dictionary<object, object>();
dict.Add(45, "dkd");
A pssibility would be to capsulate the dictionary in a new class, and create the dictionary via a generic method:
public class GenericDictionary
{
private IDictionary m_dictionary;
public bool Add<TA, TB>(TA key, TB value)
{
try
{
if (m_dictionary == null)
{
m_dictionary = new Dictionary<TA, TB>();
}
//check types before adding, instead of using try/catch
m_dictionary.Add(key, value);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
//wrong types were added to an existing dictionary
return false;
}
}
}
Of course the code above needs some improvements (no exception when adding wrong types, additional methods implementing the dictionary methods you need), but the idea should be clear.
Related
I need a data structure like below, but I need to be able to change the bool value. Other two stay the as they were when they were initialized. What would you use for best performance?
Dictionary<string, (object, bool)> dic = new Dictionary<string, (object, bool)>();
I was thinking of hashtable. But hashtable is like a dictionary with key/value. The object and bool in my example are in concept not like a key/value, because other values of the external dictionary can have the same object (or better yet ... object type). I don't want to make someone looking at my code later on thinking that the object and bool are more related they really are.
EDIT: object in this example is just a place holder. In reality it's a complex object with other objects in it and so on. Procedure before this one makes a bunch of this objects and some of them are deepcopy of the others. They are passed to this procedure. All of the object are here named by some rules and stored in the dictionary. Names are obviously unique. Procedure that comes after will take this dictionary and set the bool value on and off based on the values in the objects themselves and on the values of other bools. Procedure will be recursive until some state is reached.
Number of objects (or dic. entries) is arbitrary but expected to be >100 && <500. Time complexity is O(n).
I am targeting .NET7 (standard).
but I need to be able to change the bool value.
You can just reassign value for the key:
var tuples = new Dictionary<string, (object Obj, bool Bool)>
{
{ "1", (new object(), true) }
};
tuples["1"] = (tuples["1"].Obj, false); // or tuples["1"] = (tuples["1"].Item1, false);
Or
if (tuples.TryGetValue("1", out var c))
{
tuples["1"] = (c.Obj, false);
}
Personally I would leave it at that, but for really high perf scenarios you can look into CollectionMarshall instead of second snippet:
ref var v = ref CollectionsMarshal.GetValueRefOrNullRef(tuples, "1");
if (!Unsafe.IsNullRef(ref v))
{
v.Bool = false;
}
A bit more info - here.
For the 'performance' aspect:
The .NET Dictionary uses hashes to look up the item you need, which is very fast (comparable to a HashTable). I don't expect much performance issues related to this, or at least nothing that can be improved on with other data structures.
Also, you shouldn't worry about performance unless you are doing things a million times in a row + it turns out (in practice) that something is taking a measurable amount of time.
For the 'changing a bool' aspect:
... that is quite a long story.
There are 2 tuple variants in .NET:
The value tuple, created by doing var x = (myObj, myBool), like you are doing.
The x is a struct, and therefore a Value Type. You can actually change x.Item1 or x.Item2 to a new value just fine.
However... if you put x into a Dictionary then you actually put a copy of x (with a copy of its values) into the dictionary, because that is the nature of value types.
When you retrieve it again from the Dictionary, yet another copy is made - which makes modifying the actual tuple inside the Dictionary impossible; any attempt to do so would only modify the last copy you got.
Side story: The .NET Compiler knows this, which is why its refuses to compile code like dic[yourKey].Item2 = newBool; because such code wouldn't do what you might hope it would do. You're basically telling the compiler to create a copy, modify the copy, and then... discard the copy. The compiler requries a variable to store the copy before the rest can even start, but we provided no variable.
The Tuple generic class, or rather a range of generic classes, an instance of which can be created using calls like var x = Tuple.Create(myObj, myBool). These classes however forbid that you change any of their properties, they are always readonly. Tuple class instances can be put in a Dictionary, but they will still be readonly.
So what options are there really to 'modify a value in a tuple' a Dictionary?
Keep using a value tuple, but accept that in order to "change" the tuple inside the Dictionary you'll have to make a new instance (either a copy, or from scratch), set it to the properties that you want, and put that instance (or actualy a copy...) into the dictionary:
// initialize it
var dict = new Dictionary<string, (object, bool)>();
var obj = new object();
dict["abc"] = (obj, true);
// change it
var tmpTuple = dict["abc"]; // get copy
tmpTuple.Item2 = false; // alter copy
dict["abc"] = tmpTuple; // store another copy
// or if you want to avoid the tmp variable
dict["abc"] = (dict["abc"].Item1, false)
Use a custom class instead of the value tuple or a Tuple class, and then put that into the Dictionary:
public class MyPair
{
public object O { get; set; }
public bool B { get; set; }
}
// initialize it
var dict = new Dictionary<string, MyPair>();
var obj = new object();
dict["abc"] = new MyPair { O = obj, B = true };
// change it
dict["abc"].B = false;
So both types of Tuples are OK for objects that you don't want to do a lot with. But both have certain limits in their usage, and sooner or later you may need to start using classes.
I'm considering three approaches for returning references to internal Dictionary instances (C#) in regards to code safety and impact on the code readability/visually for a project I'm working on.
I've narrowed it down to the following three approaches, but am open to better suggestions. Currently I prefer #3 as the best balance of safety without extra boiler plate.
1) Use a second ReadOnlyDictionary instance to wrap internal Dictionary, only ever letting the ReadOnlyDictionary escape the class:
2) Return the Dictionary instance as an IReadOnlyDictionary, but recasting would allow it to be modified so not as safe as option #1 or #3.
3) Return Dictionary.ToImmutableDictionary() as a ImmutableDictionary when it escapes the containing class so that the returned object is an immutable view of the inner dictionary, although this will make a new copy for every call incurring a higher cost, that should be fine with small simple dictionaries (which mine are).
private readonly Dictionary<string, string> innerDictionary = new Dictionary<string, string>();
// Only required for Example #1
private readonly IReadOnlyDictionary<string, string> readonlyInnerDictionary;
public ExampleClass() {
// Only required for Example #1
readonlyInnerDictionary = new ReadOnlyDictionary<string, string>(innerDictionary);
}
public IReadOnlyDictionary<string, string> GetExampleOne() {
// Requires a second dictionary which is more boiler plate but the object being returned is truly readonly
return readonlyInnerDictionary;
}
public IReadOnlyDictionary<string, string> GetExampleTwo() {
// Requires InnerDictionary be defined as Dictionary (Not IDictionary) but doesn't require the second dictionary be defined
// which is less boiler plate, but the object returned could be re-cast to it's mutable form meaning it's not truly mutation safe.
return innerDictionary;
}
public ImmutableDictionary<string, string> GetExampleThree() {
// Truly immutable object returned, but a new instance is built for every call; fortunately all of my dictionaries are small (containing at most 9 keys)
return innerDictionary.ToImmutableDictionary();
}
Option 1 is the way to go. You can recast ReadOnlyDictionary to IDictionary, but that will throw an Exception when trying to mutate:
void CastingTest()
{
var dic1 = new Dictionary<string, string>();
dic1.Add("Key", "Value");
var dic2 = new ReadOnlyDictionary<string, string>(dic1);
var castedDic = (IDictionary<string, string>)dic2;
castedDic.Add("AnotherKey", "Another Value"); //System.NotSupportedException, Collection is read only
}
The ReadOnlyDictionary doesn't create another Dictionary. It points to the same reference of the first one, encapsulating it. So if you do:
void AddTest()
{
var dic1 = new Dictionary<string, string>();
dic1.Add("Key", "Value");
var dic2 = new ReadOnlyDictionary<string, string>(dic1);
dic1.Add("Key2", "Value2"); //Now dic2 have 2 values too.
}
Never expose your innerDictionary and you'll be fine.
Determined that the neatest, easiest and safest; but not the most performant solution is to use a ConcurrentDictionary internally which ensures thread safety (from System.Collections.Concurrent) and then to use the System.Collections.Immutable to call dictionary.ToImmutableDictionary() which creates the dictionary which escapes the inner class. The interface signature is for ImmutableDictionary<KeyType, ValueType>.
This is not the most performant solution, but in my case with dictionaries with less than 12 keys and small simple objects representing state in most cases that is not a concern.
If I have a Dictionary<String,...> is it possible to make methods like ContainsKey case-insensitive?
This seemed related, but I didn't understand it properly: c# Dictionary: making the Key case-insensitive through declarations
This seemed related, but I didn't understand it properly: c# Dictionary: making the Key case-insensitive through declarations
It is indeed related. The solution is to tell the dictionary instance not to use the standard string compare method (which is case sensitive) but rather to use a case insensitive one. This is done using the appropriate constructor:
var dict = new Dictionary<string, YourClass>(
StringComparer.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
The constructor expects an IEqualityComparer which tells the dictionary how to compare keys.
StringComparer.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase gives you an IEqualityComparer instance which compares strings in a case-insensitive manner.
var myDic = new Dictionary<string, string>(StringComparer.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
myDic.Add("HeLlo", "hi");
if (myDic.ContainsKey("hello"))
Console.WriteLine(myDic["hello"]);
There are few chances where your deal with dictionary which is pulled from 3rd party or external dll. Using linq
YourDictionary.Any(i => i.KeyName.ToLower().Contains("yourstring")))
If you have no control in the instance creation, let say your object is desterilized from json etc, you can create a wrapper class that inherits from dictionary class.
public class CaseInSensitiveDictionary<TValue> : Dictionary<string, TValue>
{
public CaseInSensitiveDictionary() : base(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase){}
}
I just ran into the same kind of trouble where I needed a caseINsensitive dictionary in a ASP.NET Core controller.
I wrote an extension method which does the trick.
Maybe this can be helpful for others as well...
public static IDictionary<string, TValue> ConvertToCaseInSensitive<TValue>(this IDictionary<string, TValue> dictionary)
{
var resultDictionary = new Dictionary<string, TValue>(StringComparer.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase);
foreach (var (key, value) in dictionary)
{
resultDictionary.Add(key, value);
}
dictionary = resultDictionary;
return dictionary;
}
To use the extension method:
myDictionary.ConvertToCaseInSensitive();
Then get a value from the dictionary with:
myDictionary.ContainsKey("TheKeyWhichIsNotCaseSensitiveAnymore!");
I know this is an older question, but I had the same issue where the dictionary is coming from a 3rd party tool that did not implement an ignore case StringComparer in the constructor. Tweaked from the method #Soviut has above, but feel this is a lot cleaner and lets you work with the value immediately.
var lookup = source.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Key.Equals("...", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
if (lookup.Key != null)
The whole story; I have some KeyValuePairs that I need to store in a session and my primary goal is to keep it small. Therefore I don't have the option of using many different collection. While the key is a different enum value of of a different enum type the value is always just a enum value of the same enum type. I have chosen a HashTable for this approach which content look like this (just many more):
// The Key-Value-Pairs
{ EnumTypA.ValueA1, MyEnum.ValueA },
{ EnumTypB.ValueB1, MyEnum.ValueB },
{ EnumTypC.ValueC1, MyEnum.ValueA },
{ EnumTypA.ValueA2, MyEnum.ValueC },
{ EnumTypB.ValueB1, MyEnum.ValueC }
At most I am running contains on that HashTable but for sure I also need to fetch the value at some point and I need to loop through all elements. That all works fine but now I have a new requirement to keep the order I have added them to the HashTable -> BANG
A HashTable is a map and that is not possible!
Now I thought about using a SortedList<object, MyEnum> or to go with more Data but slightly faster lookups and use a SortedSet<object> in addition to the HashTable.
Content below has been edited
The SortedList is implemented as
SortedList<Enum, MyEnum> mySortedList = new SortedList<Enum, MyEnum>();
the SortedSet is implemented as
SortedSet<Enum> mySortedSet = new SortedSet<Enum>();
The described Key - Value - Pairs are added to the sorted list with
void AddPair(Enum key, MyEnum value)
{
mySortedList.Add(key, value);
}
And for the SortedSett like this
void AddPair(Enum key)
{
mySortedSet.Add(key);
}
Both are failing with the exception:
Object must be the same type as the
enum
My question is: What goes wrong and how can I archive my goal?
Used Solution
I've decided to life with the downside
of redundant data against slower
lookups and decided to implement a
List<Enum> which will retain the
insert order parallel to my already
existing HashTable.
In my case I just have about 50-150
Elements so I decided to benchmark the
Hashtable against the
List<KeyValuePair<object,object>>
Therefore I have create me the
following helper to implement
ContainsKey() to the
List<KeyValuePair<object,object>>
static bool ContainsKey(this List<KeyValuePair<object, object>> list, object key)
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<object, object> p in list)
{
if (p.Key.Equals(key))
return true;
}
return false;
}
I inserted the same 100 Entries and
checked randomly for one of ten
different entries in a 300000 loop.
And... the difference was tiny so I
decided to go with the
List<KeyValuePair<object,object>>
I think you should store your data in an instance of List<KeyValuePair<Enum, MyEnum>> or Dictionary<Enum, MyEnum>.
SortedSet and SortedList are generic, but your keys are EnumTypeA/EnumTypeB, you need to specify the generic T with their base class(System.Enum) like:
SortedList<Enum, MyEnum> sorted = new SortedList<Enum, MyEnum>();
EDIT
Why you got this exception
SortedList and SortedSet use a comparer inside to check if two keys are equal. Comparer<Enum>.Default will be used as the comparer if you didn't specify the comparer in the constructor. Unfortunately Comparer<Enum>.Default isn't implemented as you expected. It throws the exception if the two enums are not the same type.
How to resolve the problem
If you don't want to use a List<KeyValuePair<Enum, MyEnum>> and insist using SortedLIst, you need to specify a comparer to the constructor like this:
class EnumComparer : IComparer<Enum>
{
public int Compare(Enum x, Enum y)
{
return x.GetHashCode() - y.GetHashCode();
}
}
var sorted = new SortedList<Enum, MyEnum>(new EnumComparer());
Btw, I think you need to obtain the "inserting order"? If so, List<KeyValuePair<K,V>> is a better choice, because SortedSet will prevent duplicated items.
I'm using a Dictionary<string, int> where the int is a count of the key.
Now, I need to access the last-inserted Key inside the Dictionary, but I do not know the name of it. The obvious attempt:
int LastCount = mydict[mydict.keys[mydict.keys.Count]];
does not work, because Dictionary.Keys does not implement a []-indexer.
I just wonder if there is any similar class? I thought about using a Stack, but that only stores a string. I could now create my own struct and then use a Stack<MyStruct>, but I wonder if there is another alternative, essentially a Dictionary that implements an []-indexer on the Keys?
As #Falanwe points out in a comment, doing something like this is incorrect:
int LastCount = mydict.Keys.ElementAt(mydict.Count -1);
You should not depend on the order of keys in a Dictionary. If you need ordering, you should use an OrderedDictionary, as suggested in this answer. The other answers on this page are interesting as well.
You can use an OrderedDictionary.
Represents a collection of key/value
pairs that are accessible by the key
or index.
A Dictionary is a Hash Table, so you have no idea the order of insertion!
If you want to know the last inserted key I would suggest extending the Dictionary to include a LastKeyInserted value.
E.g.:
public MyDictionary<K, T> : IDictionary<K, T>
{
private IDictionary<K, T> _InnerDictionary;
public K LastInsertedKey { get; set; }
public MyDictionary()
{
_InnerDictionary = new Dictionary<K, T>();
}
#region Implementation of IDictionary
public void Add(KeyValuePair<K, T> item)
{
_InnerDictionary.Add(item);
LastInsertedKey = item.Key;
}
public void Add(K key, T value)
{
_InnerDictionary.Add(key, value);
LastInsertedKey = key;
}
.... rest of IDictionary methods
#endregion
}
You will run into problems however when you use .Remove() so to overcome this you will have to keep an ordered list of the keys inserted.
Why don't you just extend the dictionary class to add in a last key inserted property. Something like the following maybe?
public class ExtendedDictionary : Dictionary<string, int>
{
private int lastKeyInserted = -1;
public int LastKeyInserted
{
get { return lastKeyInserted; }
set { lastKeyInserted = value; }
}
public void AddNew(string s, int i)
{
lastKeyInserted = i;
base.Add(s, i);
}
}
You could always do this:
string[] temp = new string[mydict.count];
mydict.Keys.CopyTo(temp, 0)
int LastCount = mydict[temp[mydict.count - 1]]
But I wouldn't recommend it. There's no guarantee that the last inserted key will be at the end of the array. The ordering for Keys on MSDN is unspecified, and subject to change. In my very brief test, it does seem to be in order of insertion, but you'd be better off building in proper bookkeeping like a stack--as you suggest (though I don't see the need of a struct based on your other statements)--or single variable cache if you just need to know the latest key.
I think you can do something like this, the syntax might be wrong, havent used C# in a while
To get the last item
Dictionary<string, int>.KeyCollection keys = mydict.keys;
string lastKey = keys.Last();
or use Max instead of Last to get the max value, I dont know which one fits your code better.
I agree with the second part of Patrick's answer. Even if in some tests it seems to keep insertion order, the documentation (and normal behavior for dictionaries and hashes) explicitly states the ordering is unspecified.
You're just asking for trouble depending on the ordering of the keys. Add your own bookkeeping (as Patrick said, just a single variable for the last added key) to be sure. Also, don't be tempted by all the methods such as Last and Max on the dictionary as those are probably in relation to the key comparator (I'm not sure about that).
In case you decide to use dangerous code that is subject to breakage, this extension function will fetch a key from a Dictionary<K,V> according to its internal indexing (which for Mono and .NET currently appears to be in the same order as you get by enumerating the Keys property).
It is much preferable to use Linq: dict.Keys.ElementAt(i), but that function will iterate O(N); the following is O(1) but with a reflection performance penalty.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Reflection;
public static class Extensions
{
public static TKey KeyByIndex<TKey,TValue>(this Dictionary<TKey, TValue> dict, int idx)
{
Type type = typeof(Dictionary<TKey, TValue>);
FieldInfo info = type.GetField("entries", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
if (info != null)
{
// .NET
Object element = ((Array)info.GetValue(dict)).GetValue(idx);
return (TKey)element.GetType().GetField("key", BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance).GetValue(element);
}
// Mono:
info = type.GetField("keySlots", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
return (TKey)((Array)info.GetValue(dict)).GetValue(idx);
}
};
One alternative would be a KeyedCollection if the key is embedded in the value.
Just create a basic implementation in a sealed class to use.
So to replace Dictionary<string, int> (which isn't a very good example as there isn't a clear key for a int).
private sealed class IntDictionary : KeyedCollection<string, int>
{
protected override string GetKeyForItem(int item)
{
// The example works better when the value contains the key. It falls down a bit for a dictionary of ints.
return item.ToString();
}
}
KeyedCollection<string, int> intCollection = new ClassThatContainsSealedImplementation.IntDictionary();
intCollection.Add(7);
int valueByIndex = intCollection[0];
The way you worded the question leads me to believe that the int in the Dictionary contains the item's "position" on the Dictionary. Judging from the assertion that the keys aren't stored in the order that they're added, if this is correct, that would mean that keys.Count (or .Count - 1, if you're using zero-based) should still always be the number of the last-entered key?
If that's correct, is there any reason you can't instead use Dictionary<int, string> so that you can use mydict[ mydict.Keys.Count ]?
I don't know if this would work because I'm pretty sure that the keys aren't stored in the order they are added, but you could cast the KeysCollection to a List and then get the last key in the list... but it would be worth having a look.
The only other thing I can think of is to store the keys in a lookup list and add the keys to the list before you add them to the dictionary... it's not pretty tho.
To expand on Daniels post and his comments regarding the key, since the key is embedded within the value anyway, you could resort to using a KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> as the value. The main reasoning for this is that, in general, the Key isn't necessarily directly derivable from the value.
Then it'd look like this:
public sealed class CustomDictionary<TKey, TValue>
: KeyedCollection<TKey, KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>>
{
protected override TKey GetKeyForItem(KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue> item)
{
return item.Key;
}
}
To use this as in the previous example, you'd do:
CustomDictionary<string, int> custDict = new CustomDictionary<string, int>();
custDict.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, int>("key", 7));
int valueByIndex = custDict[0].Value;
int valueByKey = custDict["key"].Value;
string keyByIndex = custDict[0].Key;
A dictionary may not be very intuitive for using index for reference but, you can have similar operations with an array of KeyValuePair:
ex.
KeyValuePair<string, string>[] filters;
You can also use SortedList and its Generic counterpart. These two classes and in Andrew Peters answer mentioned OrderedDictionary are dictionary classes in which items can be accessed by index (position) as well as by key. How to use these classes you can find: SortedList Class , SortedList Generic Class .
Visual Studio's UserVoice gives a link to generic OrderedDictionary implementation by dotmore.
But if you only need to get key/value pairs by index and don't need to get values by keys, you may use one simple trick. Declare some generic class (I called it ListArray) as follows:
class ListArray<T> : List<T[]> { }
You may also declare it with constructors:
class ListArray<T> : List<T[]>
{
public ListArray() : base() { }
public ListArray(int capacity) : base(capacity) { }
}
For example, you read some key/value pairs from a file and just want to store them in the order they were read so to get them later by index:
ListArray<string> settingsRead = new ListArray<string>();
using (var sr = new StreamReader(myFile))
{
string line;
while ((line = sr.ReadLine()) != null)
{
string[] keyValueStrings = line.Split(separator);
for (int i = 0; i < keyValueStrings.Length; i++)
keyValueStrings[i] = keyValueStrings[i].Trim();
settingsRead.Add(keyValueStrings);
}
}
// Later you get your key/value strings simply by index
string[] myKeyValueStrings = settingsRead[index];
As you may have noticed, you can have not necessarily just pairs of key/value in your ListArray. The item arrays may be of any length, like in jagged array.