It strikes me as overkill to read lines from a file into a collection class at all, tho maybe I just don't know enough about the app here.
But if the ultimate destination of said lines is a db, just read a line, insert a record, read a line, insert a record, etc. until you run out of lines in the file. I'd be tempted to do away with the class encapsulating the data on the lines too... -----Original Message----- From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Ritchie Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:35 PM To: ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] New Type decision Criterias Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "collections" I didn't mean arrays, I meant classes derived from classes within System.Collections. Also, I was under the impression that C# simply mapped array definitions to the Array class. So: S[] array = new S[10000]; is directly allocating a reference type. I was also under the impression that the Array type managed its own memory (e.g. in the above example it isn't allocating 10000 individual value types) I assume the value types in this example are allocated from the stack: ArrayList al = new ArrayList(); for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { al.Add(i); } If you're processing lines of a file you're more likely to use a Collections based class than a language-supplied array. http://www.peterRitchie.com/ On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 22:10:07 +0100, Fabian Schmied <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Value types (structs) are intended to be used where a lightweight >> (few members, little instance data, generally do not persist for >> long) type is >> required. It's also not well designed for huge collections of data. >> Value types are allocated from the stack rather than from the heap. >> So, for large collections of large value types you need to consider >> the stack >> ramifications. > >Value types are only allocated on the stack in some cases >(http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/csharp/memory.html). > >"Collections of value types" are indeed typically not allocated on the >stack, so you don't need to consider the stack ramifications there. >(Unless you are talking about collections in the sense of a large >number of local variable declarations, but I don't think you will >easily run into stack problems with local variable declarations.) > >In particular, in code similar to the following, the array will not be >allocated on the stack, even if array is a local variable: > >int[] array = new int[10000]; > >The same applies with newly defined value types: > >struct S { >} > >S[] array = new S[10000]; > >IIRC, this can be much more memory efficient than the equivalent: > >class C { >} > >C[] array = new C[10000]; >for (int i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) { > array[i] = new C(); >} > >The struct way is more runtime efficient, too, because value types can >be initialized without their constructors being run [1]. > >Fabian > >[1] The public default constructor of value types can be simulated by >filling a block of memory with zeroes. =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
