Develop Reference

C# fast Except method for sorted list

I am working on an application whose bottleneck is list1.Except(list2). From this post : should i use Except or Contains when dealing with HashSet or so in Linq the complexity of except is O(m+n) (m and n standing for the sizes of the lists). However, my lists are sorted. Can this help ?
The first implementation I can think of :
foreach element in list2 (m operations)
look for it in list1 (ln(n) operations)
if present
set it to null (O(1), removing has a O(n))
else continue
It has complexity O(m*ln(n)), which is very interesting when m is small and n is large (this is exactly the case with my data sets : m is around 50, n is around 1 000 000). However the fact that it produces null may have a lot of implications on the functions using it... Is there any way to keep this complexity, without having to write nulls (and then keeping track of them)
Any help would be greatly appreciated!

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public class Test
{
public static void Main()
{
var listM = new List<int>();
var listN = new List<int>();
for(int i = 0, x = 0; x < 50; i+=13, x++) {
listM.Add(i);
}
for(int i = 0, x = 0; x < 10000; i+=7, x++) {
listN.Add(i);
}
Console.WriteLine(SortedExcept(listM, listN).Count);
}
public static List<T> SortedExcept<T>(List<T> m, List<T> n) {
var result = new List<T>();
foreach(var itm in m) {
var index = n.BinarySearch(itm);
if(index < 0) {
result.Add(itm);
}
}
return result;
}
}
EDIT Here's the O(M + N) version as well
public static List<T> SortedExcept2<T>(List<T> m, List<T> n) where T : IComparable<T> {
var result = new List<T>();
int i = 0, j = 0;
if(n.Count == 0) {
result.AddRange(m);
return result;
}
while(i < m.Count) {
if(m[i].CompareTo(n[j]) < 0) {
result.Add(m[i]);
i++;
} else if(m[i].CompareTo(n[j]) > 0) {
j++;
} else {
i++;
}
if(j >= n.Count) {
for(; i < m.Count; i++) {
result.Add(m[i]);
}
break;
}
}
return result;
}
In a quick & dirty benchmark http://ideone.com/Y2oEQD M + N is always faster even when N is 10million. BinarySearch suffers penalties because it's accessing array memory in a non-linear fashion; this causes cache misses which slows down the algorithm, so the larger N gets the more memory access penalties with BinarySearch.

If both lists are sorted, then you can implement your own solution easily:
listA except listB algorithm then works as follows:
1. Start from the beginning of both lists
2. If listA element is smaller than the listB element,
then include the listA element in the output and advance listA
3. If listB element is smaller than the listA element, advance listB
4. If listA and listB elements are equal,
advance both lists and do not push the element to the output
Repeat until listA is exhausted. Take special care that listB might be exhausted before listA.

Why is LINQ .Where(predicate).First() faster than .First(predicate)?

I am doing some performance tests and noticed that a LINQ expression like
result = list.First(f => f.Id == i).Property
is slower than
result = list.Where(f => f.Id == i).First().Property
This seems counter intuitive. I would have thought that the first expression would be faster because it can stop iterating over the list as soon as the predicate is satisfied, whereas I would have thought that the .Where() expression might iterate over the whole list before calling .First() on the resulting subset. Even if the latter does short circuit it should not be faster than using First directly, but it is.
Below are two really simple unit tests that illustrate this. When compiled with optimisation on TestWhereAndFirst is about 30% faster than TestFirstOnly on .Net and Silverlight 4. I have tried making the predicate return more results but the performance difference is the same.
Can any one explain why .First(fn) is slower than .Where(fn).First()? I see a similar counter intuitive result with .Count(fn) compared to .Where(fn).Count().
private const int Range = 50000;
private class Simple
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int Value { get; set; }
}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestFirstOnly()
{
List<Simple> list = new List<Simple>(Range);
for (int i = Range - 1; i >= 0; --i)
{
list.Add(new Simple { Id = i, Value = 10 });
}
int result = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < Range; ++i)
{
result += list.First(f => f.Id == i).Value;
}
Assert.IsTrue(result > 0);
}
[TestMethod()]
public void TestWhereAndFirst()
{
List<Simple> list = new List<Simple>(Range);
for (int i = Range - 1; i >= 0; --i)
{
list.Add(new Simple { Id = i, Value = 10 });
}
int result = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < Range; ++i)
{
result += list.Where(f => f.Id == i).First().Value;
}
Assert.IsTrue(result > 0);
}

I got the same results: where+first was quicker than first.
As Jon noted, Linq uses lazy evaluation so the performance should be (and is) broadly similar for both methods.
Looking in Reflector, First uses a simple foreach loop to iterate through the collection but Where has a variety of iterators specialised for different collection types (arrays, lists, etc.). Presumably this is what gives Where the small advantage.

how do i return a count of match items

I have a sorted generic list. I would like to return the first 10 that match a condition.
sort of like the method below but only the first 10 items
mySortedlist.FindAll(delegate(myclass tmp){ return tmp.ID == 123;});

Something like the following:
int count = 0;
mySortedlist.FindAll(delegate(myclass tmp){ return (tmp.ID == 123 && ++count <= 10);});

Well, that will return a list already. You can create your own equivalent of Enumerable.Take pretty easily:
public static IEnumerable<T> Take<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
int count = 0;
foreach (T item in source)
{
yield return item;
count++;
if (count == size)
{
yield break;
}
}
}
Then you can use:
List<myclass> filtered = mySortedlist.FindAll(delagate(myclass tmp) {
return tmp.ID == 123;
});
List<myclass> list = new List<myclass>(Helper.Take(filtered, 10));
Another option is to use LINQBridge so that you can use LINQ as much as possible - ideally using C# 3 even when you're targeting .NET 2.0, if possible. It'll make your life much simpler :)

Using Linq to get the last N elements of a collection?

Given a collection, is there a way to get the last N elements of that collection? If there isn't a method in the framework, what would be the best way to write an extension method to do this?

collection.Skip(Math.Max(0, collection.Count() - N));
This approach preserves item order without a dependency on any sorting, and has broad compatibility across several LINQ providers.
It is important to take care not to call Skip with a negative number. Some providers, such as the Entity Framework, will produce an ArgumentException when presented with a negative argument. The call to Math.Max avoids this neatly.
The class below has all of the essentials for extension methods, which are: a static class, a static method, and use of the this keyword.
public static class MiscExtensions
{
// Ex: collection.TakeLast(5);
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int N)
{
return source.Skip(Math.Max(0, source.Count() - N));
}
}
A brief note on performance:
Because the call to Count() can cause enumeration of certain data structures, this approach has the risk of causing two passes over the data. This isn't really a problem with most enumerables; in fact, optimizations exist already for Lists, Arrays, and even EF queries to evaluate the Count() operation in O(1) time.
If, however, you must use a forward-only enumerable and would like to avoid making two passes, consider a one-pass algorithm like Lasse V. Karlsen or Mark Byers describe. Both of these approaches use a temporary buffer to hold items while enumerating, which are yielded once the end of the collection is found.

coll.Reverse().Take(N).Reverse().ToList();
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> coll, int N)
{
return coll.Reverse().Take(N).Reverse();
}
UPDATE: To address clintp's problem: a) Using the TakeLast() method I defined above solves the problem, but if you really want the do it without the extra method, then you just have to recognize that while Enumerable.Reverse() can be used as an extension method, you aren't required to use it that way:
List<string> mystring = new List<string>() { "one", "two", "three" };
mystring = Enumerable.Reverse(mystring).Take(2).Reverse().ToList();

.NET Core 2.0+ provides the LINQ method TakeLast():
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.linq.enumerable.takelast
example:
Enumerable
.Range(1, 10)
.TakeLast(3) // <--- takes last 3 items
.ToList()
.ForEach(i => System.Console.WriteLine(i))
// outputs:
// 8
// 9
// 10

Note: I missed your question title which said Using Linq, so my answer does not in fact use Linq.
If you want to avoid caching a non-lazy copy of the entire collection, you could write a simple method that does it using a linked list.
The following method will add each value it finds in the original collection into a linked list, and trim the linked list down to the number of items required. Since it keeps the linked list trimmed to this number of items the entire time through iterating through the collection, it will only keep a copy of at most N items from the original collection.
It does not require you to know the number of items in the original collection, nor iterate over it more than once.
Usage:
IEnumerable<int> sequence = Enumerable.Range(1, 10000);
IEnumerable<int> last10 = sequence.TakeLast(10);
...
Extension method:
public static class Extensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> collection,
int n)
{
if (collection == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(collection));
if (n < 0)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(n), $"{nameof(n)} must be 0 or greater");
LinkedList<T> temp = new LinkedList<T>();
foreach (var value in collection)
{
temp.AddLast(value);
if (temp.Count > n)
temp.RemoveFirst();
}
return temp;
}
}

Here's a method that works on any enumerable but uses only O(N) temporary storage:
public static class TakeLastExtension
{
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int takeCount)
{
if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); }
if (takeCount < 0) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("takeCount", "must not be negative"); }
if (takeCount == 0) { yield break; }
T[] result = new T[takeCount];
int i = 0;
int sourceCount = 0;
foreach (T element in source)
{
result[i] = element;
i = (i + 1) % takeCount;
sourceCount++;
}
if (sourceCount < takeCount)
{
takeCount = sourceCount;
i = 0;
}
for (int j = 0; j < takeCount; ++j)
{
yield return result[(i + j) % takeCount];
}
}
}
Usage:
List<int> l = new List<int> {4, 6, 3, 6, 2, 5, 7};
List<int> lastElements = l.TakeLast(3).ToList();
It works by using a ring buffer of size N to store the elements as it sees them, overwriting old elements with new ones. When the end of the enumerable is reached the ring buffer contains the last N elements.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned it, but SkipWhile does have a method that uses the element's index.
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLastN<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int n)
{
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("Source cannot be null");
int goldenIndex = source.Count() - n;
return source.SkipWhile((val, index) => index < goldenIndex);
}
//Or if you like them one-liners (in the spirit of the current accepted answer);
//However, this is most likely impractical due to the repeated calculations
collection.SkipWhile((val, index) => index < collection.Count() - N)
The only perceivable benefit that this solution presents over others is that you can have the option to add in a predicate to make a more powerful and efficient LINQ query, instead of having two separate operations that traverse the IEnumerable twice.
public static IEnumerable<T> FilterLastN<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int n, Predicate<T> pred)
{
int goldenIndex = source.Count() - n;
return source.SkipWhile((val, index) => index < goldenIndex && pred(val));
}

Use EnumerableEx.TakeLast in RX's System.Interactive assembly. It's an O(N) implementation like #Mark's, but it uses a queue rather than a ring-buffer construct (and dequeues items when it reaches buffer capacity).
(NB: This is the IEnumerable version - not the IObservable version, though the implementation of the two is pretty much identical)

If you are dealing with a collection with a key (e.g. entries from a database) a quick (i.e. faster than the selected answer) solution would be
collection.OrderByDescending(c => c.Key).Take(3).OrderBy(c => c.Key);

If you don't mind dipping into Rx as part of the monad, you can use TakeLast:
IEnumerable<int> source = Enumerable.Range(1, 10000);
IEnumerable<int> lastThree = source.AsObservable().TakeLast(3).AsEnumerable();

I tried to combine efficiency and simplicity and end up with this :
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int count)
{
if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); }
Queue<T> lastElements = new Queue<T>();
foreach (T element in source)
{
lastElements.Enqueue(element);
if (lastElements.Count > count)
{
lastElements.Dequeue();
}
}
return lastElements;
}
About
performance : In C#, Queue<T> is implemented using a circular buffer so there is no object instantiation done each loop (only when the queue is growing up). I did not set queue capacity (using dedicated constructor) because someone might call this extension with count = int.MaxValue . For extra performance you might check if source implement IList<T> and if yes, directly extract the last values using array indexes.

If using a third-party library is an option, MoreLinq defines TakeLast() which does exactly this.

It is a little inefficient to take the last N of a collection using LINQ as all the above solutions require iterating across the collection. TakeLast(int n) in System.Interactive also has this problem.
If you have a list a more efficient thing to do is slice it using the following method
/// Select from start to end exclusive of end using the same semantics
/// as python slice.
/// <param name="list"> the list to slice</param>
/// <param name="start">The starting index</param>
/// <param name="end">The ending index. The result does not include this index</param>
public static List<T> Slice<T>
(this IReadOnlyList<T> list, int start, int? end = null)
{
if (end == null)
{
end = list.Count();
}
if (start < 0)
{
start = list.Count + start;
}
if (start >= 0 && end.Value > 0 && end.Value > start)
{
return list.GetRange(start, end.Value - start);
}
if (end < 0)
{
return list.GetRange(start, (list.Count() + end.Value) - start);
}
if (end == start)
{
return new List<T>();
}
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException(
"count = " + list.Count() +
" start = " + start +
" end = " + end);
}
with
public static List<T> GetRange<T>( this IReadOnlyList<T> list, int index, int count )
{
List<T> r = new List<T>(count);
for ( int i = 0; i < count; i++ )
{
int j=i + index;
if ( j >= list.Count )
{
break;
}
r.Add(list[j]);
}
return r;
}
and some test cases
[Fact]
public void GetRange()
{
IReadOnlyList<int> l = new List<int>() { 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 };
l
.GetRange(2, 3)
.ShouldAllBeEquivalentTo(new[] { 20, 30, 40 });
l
.GetRange(5, 10)
.ShouldAllBeEquivalentTo(new[] { 50, 60 });
}
[Fact]
void SliceMethodShouldWork()
{
var list = new List<int>() { 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 };
list.Slice(1, 4).ShouldBeEquivalentTo(new[] { 3, 5, 7 });
list.Slice(1, -2).ShouldBeEquivalentTo(new[] { 3, 5, 7 });
list.Slice(1, null).ShouldBeEquivalentTo(new[] { 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 });
list.Slice(-2)
.Should()
.BeEquivalentTo(new[] {9, 11});
list.Slice(-2,-1 )
.Should()
.BeEquivalentTo(new[] {9});
}

I know it's to late to answer this question. But if you are working with collection of type IList<> and you don't care about an order of the returned collection, then this method is working faster. I've used Mark Byers answer and made a little changes. So now method TakeLast is:
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(IList<T> source, int takeCount)
{
if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); }
if (takeCount < 0) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("takeCount", "must not be negative"); }
if (takeCount == 0) { yield break; }
if (source.Count > takeCount)
{
for (int z = source.Count - 1; takeCount > 0; z--)
{
takeCount--;
yield return source[z];
}
}
else
{
for(int i = 0; i < source.Count; i++)
{
yield return source[i];
}
}
}
For test I have used Mark Byers method and kbrimington's andswer. This is test:
IList<int> test = new List<int>();
for(int i = 0; i<1000000; i++)
{
test.Add(i);
}
Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();
IList<int> result = TakeLast(test, 10).ToList();
stopwatch.Stop();
Stopwatch stopwatch1 = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch1.Start();
IList<int> result1 = TakeLast2(test, 10).ToList();
stopwatch1.Stop();
Stopwatch stopwatch2 = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch2.Start();
IList<int> result2 = test.Skip(Math.Max(0, test.Count - 10)).Take(10).ToList();
stopwatch2.Stop();
And here are results for taking 10 elements:
and for taking 1000001 elements results are:

Here's my solution:
public static class EnumerationExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int count)
{
if (count <= 0)
yield break;
var inputList = input as IList<T>;
if (inputList != null)
{
int last = inputList.Count;
int first = last - count;
if (first < 0)
first = 0;
for (int i = first; i < last; i++)
yield return inputList[i];
}
else
{
// Use a ring buffer. We have to enumerate the input, and we don't know in advance how many elements it will contain.
T[] buffer = new T[count];
int index = 0;
count = 0;
foreach (T item in input)
{
buffer[index] = item;
index = (index + 1) % buffer.Length;
count++;
}
// The index variable now points at the next buffer entry that would be filled. If the buffer isn't completely
// full, then there are 'count' elements preceding index. If the buffer *is* full, then index is pointing at
// the oldest entry, which is the first one to return.
//
// If the buffer isn't full, which means that the enumeration has fewer than 'count' elements, we'll fix up
// 'index' to point at the first entry to return. That's easy to do; if the buffer isn't full, then the oldest
// entry is the first one. :-)
//
// We'll also set 'count' to the number of elements to be returned. It only needs adjustment if we've wrapped
// past the end of the buffer and have enumerated more than the original count value.
if (count < buffer.Length)
index = 0;
else
count = buffer.Length;
// Return the values in the correct order.
while (count > 0)
{
yield return buffer[index];
index = (index + 1) % buffer.Length;
count--;
}
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> SkipLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int count)
{
if (count <= 0)
return input;
else
return input.SkipLastIter(count);
}
private static IEnumerable<T> SkipLastIter<T>(this IEnumerable<T> input, int count)
{
var inputList = input as IList<T>;
if (inputList != null)
{
int first = 0;
int last = inputList.Count - count;
if (last < 0)
last = 0;
for (int i = first; i < last; i++)
yield return inputList[i];
}
else
{
// Aim to leave 'count' items in the queue. If the input has fewer than 'count'
// items, then the queue won't ever fill and we return nothing.
Queue<T> elements = new Queue<T>();
foreach (T item in input)
{
elements.Enqueue(item);
if (elements.Count > count)
yield return elements.Dequeue();
}
}
}
}
The code is a bit chunky, but as a drop-in reusable component, it should perform as well as it can in most scenarios, and it'll keep the code that's using it nice and concise. :-)
My TakeLast for non-IList`1 is based on the same ring buffer algorithm as that in the answers by #Mark Byers and #MackieChan further up. It's interesting how similar they are -- I wrote mine completely independently. Guess there's really just one way to do a ring buffer properly. :-)
Looking at #kbrimington's answer, an additional check could be added to this for IQuerable<T> to fall back to the approach that works well with Entity Framework -- assuming that what I have at this point does not.

Honestly I'm not super proud of the answer, but for small collections you could use the following:
var lastN = collection.Reverse().Take(n).Reverse();
A bit hacky but it does the job ;)

My solution is based on ranges, introduced in C# version 8.
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int N)
{
return source.ToArray()[(source.Count()-N)..];
}
After running a benchmark with most rated solutions (and my humbly proposed solution):
public static class TakeLastExtension
{
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLastMarkByers<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int takeCount)
{
if (source == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("source"); }
if (takeCount < 0) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("takeCount", "must not be negative"); }
if (takeCount == 0) { yield break; }
T[] result = new T[takeCount];
int i = 0;
int sourceCount = 0;
foreach (T element in source)
{
result[i] = element;
i = (i + 1) % takeCount;
sourceCount++;
}
if (sourceCount < takeCount)
{
takeCount = sourceCount;
i = 0;
}
for (int j = 0; j < takeCount; ++j)
{
yield return result[(i + j) % takeCount];
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLastKbrimington<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int N)
{
return source.Skip(Math.Max(0, source.Count() - N));
}
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLastJamesCurran<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int N)
{
return source.Reverse().Take(N).Reverse();
}
public static IEnumerable<T> TakeLastAlex<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int N)
{
return source.ToArray()[(source.Count()-N)..];
}
}
Test
[MemoryDiagnoser]
public class TakeLastBenchmark
{
[Params(10000)]
public int N;
private readonly List<string> l = new();
[GlobalSetup]
public void Setup()
{
for (var i = 0; i < this.N; i++)
{
this.l.Add($"i");
}
}
[Benchmark]
public void Benchmark1_MarkByers()
{
var lastElements = l.TakeLastMarkByers(3).ToList();
}
[Benchmark]
public void Benchmark2_Kbrimington()
{
var lastElements = l.TakeLastKbrimington(3).ToList();
}
[Benchmark]
public void Benchmark3_JamesCurran()
{
var lastElements = l.TakeLastJamesCurran(3).ToList();
}
[Benchmark]
public void Benchmark4_Alex()
{
var lastElements = l.TakeLastAlex(3).ToList();
}
}
Program.cs:
var summary = BenchmarkRunner.Run(typeof(TakeLastBenchmark).Assembly);
Command dotnet run --project .\TestsConsole2.csproj -c Release --logBuildOutput
The results were following:
// * Summary *
BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.2, OS=Windows 10 (10.0.19044.1889/21H2/November2021Update)
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, 1 CPU, 12 logical and 6 physical cores
.NET SDK=6.0.401
[Host] : .NET 6.0.9 (6.0.922.41905), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
DefaultJob : .NET 6.0.9 (6.0.922.41905), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
Method
N
Mean
Error
StdDev
Gen0
Gen1
Allocated
Benchmark1_MarkByers
10000
89,390.53 ns
1,735.464 ns
1,704.457 ns
-
-
248 B
Benchmark2_Kbrimington
10000
46.15 ns
0.410 ns
0.363 ns
0.0076
-
128 B
Benchmark3_JamesCurran
10000
2,703.15 ns
46.298 ns
67.862 ns
4.7836
0.0038
80264 B
Benchmark4_Alex
10000
2,513.48 ns
48.661 ns
45.517 ns
4.7607
-
80152 B
Turns out the solution proposed by #Kbrimington to be the most efficient in terms of memory alloc as well as raw performance.

Below the real example how to take last 3 elements from a collection (array):
// split address by spaces into array
string[] adrParts = adr.Split(new string[] { " " },StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
// take only 3 last items in array
adrParts = adrParts.SkipWhile((value, index) => { return adrParts.Length - index > 3; }).ToArray();

Using This Method To Get All Range Without Error
public List<T> GetTsRate( List<T> AllT,int Index,int Count)
{
List<T> Ts = null;
try
{
Ts = AllT.ToList().GetRange(Index, Count);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Ts = AllT.Skip(Index).ToList();
}
return Ts ;
}

Little different implementation with usage of circular buffer. The benchmarks show that the method is circa two times faster than ones using Queue (implementation of TakeLast in System.Linq), however not without a cost - it needs a buffer which grows along with the requested number of elements, even if you have a small collection you can get huge memory allocation.
public IEnumerable<T> TakeLast<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, int count)
{
int i = 0;
if (count < 1)
yield break;
if (source is IList<T> listSource)
{
if (listSource.Count < 1)
yield break;
for (i = listSource.Count < count ? 0 : listSource.Count - count; i < listSource.Count; i++)
yield return listSource[i];
}
else
{
bool move = true;
bool filled = false;
T[] result = new T[count];
using (var enumerator = source.GetEnumerator())
while (move)
{
for (i = 0; (move = enumerator.MoveNext()) && i < count; i++)
result[i] = enumerator.Current;
filled |= move;
}
if (filled)
for (int j = i; j < count; j++)
yield return result[j];
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
yield return result[j];
}
}

//detailed code for the problem
//suppose we have a enumerable collection 'collection'
var lastIndexOfCollection=collection.Count-1 ;
var nthIndexFromLast= lastIndexOfCollection- N;
var desiredCollection=collection.GetRange(nthIndexFromLast, N);
---------------------------------------------------------------------
// use this one liner
var desiredCollection=collection.GetRange((collection.Count-(1+N)), N);

How can I get every nth item from a List<T>?

I'm using .NET 3.5 and would like to be able to obtain every *n*th item from a List. I'm not bothered as to whether it's achieved using a lambda expression or LINQ.
Edit
Looks like this question provoked quite a lot of debate (which is a good thing, right?). The main thing I've learnt is that when you think you know every way to do something (even as simple as this), think again!

return list.Where((x, i) => i % nStep == 0);

I know it's "old school," but why not just use a for loop with stepping = n?

Sounds like
IEnumerator<T> GetNth<T>(List<T> list, int n) {
for (int i=0; i<list.Count; i+=n)
yield return list[i]
}
would do the trick. I do not see the need to use Linq or a lambda expressions.
EDIT:
Make it
public static class MyListExtensions {
public static IEnumerable<T> GetNth<T>(this List<T> list, int n) {
for (int i=0; i<list.Count; i+=n)
yield return list[i];
}
}
and you write in a LINQish way
from var element in MyList.GetNth(10) select element;
2nd Edit:
To make it even more LINQish
from var i in Range(0, ((myList.Length-1)/n)+1) select list[n*i];

You can use the Where overload which passes the index along with the element
var everyFourth = list.Where((x,i) => i % 4 == 0);

For Loop
for(int i = 0; i < list.Count; i += n)
//Nth Item..

I think if you provide a linq extension, you should be able to operate on the least specific interface, thus on IEnumerable. Of course, if you are up for speed especially for large N you might provide an overload for indexed access. The latter removes the need of iterating over large amounts of not needed data, and will be much faster than the Where clause. Providing both overloads lets the compiler select the most suitable variant.
public static class LinqExtensions
{
public static IEnumerable<T> GetNth<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, int n)
{
if (n < 0)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("n");
if (n > 0)
{
int c = 0;
foreach (var e in list)
{
if (c % n == 0)
yield return e;
c++;
}
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> GetNth<T>(this IList<T> list, int n)
{
if (n < 0)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("n");
if (n > 0)
for (int c = 0; c < list.Count; c += n)
yield return list[c];
}
}

I'm not sure if it's possible to do with a LINQ expression, but I know that you can use the Where extension method to do it. For example to get every fifth item:
List<T> list = originalList.Where((t,i) => (i % 5) == 0).ToList();
This will get the first item and every fifth from there. If you want to start at the fifth item instead of the first, you compare with 4 instead of comparing with 0.

Imho no answer is right. All solutions begins from 0. But I want to have the real nth element
public static IEnumerable<T> GetNth<T>(this IList<T> list, int n)
{
for (int i = n - 1; i < list.Count; i += n)
yield return list[i];
}

#belucha I like this, because the client code is very readable and the Compiler chooses the most efficient Implementation. I would build upon this by reducing the requirements to IReadOnlyList<T> and to save the Division for high-performance LINQ:
public static IEnumerable<T> GetNth<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list, int n) {
if (n <= 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(n), n, null);
int i = n;
foreach (var e in list) {
if (++i < n) { //save Division
continue;
}
i = 0;
yield return e;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<T> GetNth<T>(this IReadOnlyList<T> list, int n
, int offset = 0) { //use IReadOnlyList<T>
if (n <= 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(n), n, null);
for (var i = offset; i < list.Count; i += n) {
yield return list[i];
}
}

private static readonly string[] sequence = "1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15".Split(',');
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var every4thElement = sequence
.Where((p, index) => index % 4 == 0);
foreach (string p in every4thElement)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}", p);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
output