【发布时间】:2021-04-30 21:13:29
【问题描述】:
我正在研究处理 2GB 数据的源代码,它代表 60 秒的网络流量。总处理时间约为 40 秒。我正在尝试尽可能优化我的代码以获得最佳性能,以尝试将总处理时间控制在 30 秒以下。
我目前在 dotTrace 中的分析表明,在我的代码进行的 330 万次调用中,有 7.62% 的时间花在了 Timestamp 结构的构造函数中。
具体来说,有两个陈述我正在努力改进:
TimestampHigh = BitConverter.ToUInt32(timestampBytes, 0);
TimestampLow = BitConverter.ToUInt32(timestampBytes, 4);
这是完整的结构:
public readonly struct Timestamp
{
public uint TimestampHigh { get; }
public uint TimestampLow { get; }
public uint Seconds { get; }
public uint Microseconds { get; }
public DateTime LocalTime => new DateTime(EpochTicks + _ticks, DateTimeKind.Utc).ToLocalTime();
private const ulong MicrosecondsPerSecond = 1000000UL;
private const ulong HighFactor = 4294967296UL;
private readonly ulong _timestamp;
private const long EpochTicks = 621355968000000000L;
private const long TicksPerMicrosecond = 10L;
private readonly long _ticks;
public Timestamp(byte[] timestampBytes, bool reverseByteOrder)
{
if (timestampBytes == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException($"{nameof(timestampBytes)} cannot be null.");
if (timestampBytes.Length != 8)
throw new ArgumentException($"{nameof(timestampBytes)} must have a length of 8.");
TimestampHigh = BitConverter.ToUInt32(timestampBytes, 0).ReverseByteOrder(reverseByteOrder);
TimestampLow = BitConverter.ToUInt32(timestampBytes, 4).ReverseByteOrder(reverseByteOrder);
_timestamp = ((ulong)TimestampHigh * HighFactor) + (ulong)TimestampLow;
_ticks = (long)_timestamp * TicksPerMicrosecond;
Seconds = (uint)(_timestamp / MicrosecondsPerSecond);
Microseconds = (uint)(_timestamp % MicrosecondsPerSecond);
}
public Timestamp(uint seconds, uint microseconds)
{
Seconds = seconds;
Microseconds = microseconds;
_timestamp = seconds * MicrosecondsPerSecond + microseconds;
_ticks = (long)_timestamp * TicksPerMicrosecond;
TimestampHigh = (uint)(_timestamp / HighFactor);
TimestampLow = (uint)(_timestamp % HighFactor);
}
public byte[] ConvertToBytes(bool reverseByteOrder)
{
List<byte> bytes = new List<byte>();
bytes.AddRange(BitConverter.GetBytes(TimestampHigh.ReverseByteOrder(reverseByteOrder)));
bytes.AddRange(BitConverter.GetBytes(TimestampLow.ReverseByteOrder(reverseByteOrder)));
return bytes.ToArray();
}
public bool Equals(Timestamp other)
{
return TimestampLow == other.TimestampLow && TimestampHigh == other.TimestampHigh;
}
public static bool operator ==(Timestamp left, Timestamp right)
{
return left.Equals(right);
}
public static bool operator !=(Timestamp left, Timestamp right)
{
return !left.Equals(right);
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return obj is Timestamp other && Equals(other);
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return _timestamp.GetHashCode();
}
}
ReverseByteOrder 方法似乎不会产生太大的性能损失,因为根据 dotTrace,它所代表的时间不到 0.5%,但此处仅供参考:
public static UInt32 ReverseByteOrder(this UInt32 value, bool reverseByteOrder)
{
if (!reverseByteOrder)
{
return value;
}
else
{
byte[] bytes = BitConverter.GetBytes(value);
Array.Reverse(bytes);
return BitConverter.ToUInt32(bytes, 0);
}
}
【问题讨论】:
-
为什么不创建一个
ReverseByteToUInt32扩展方法呢?将字节转换为 UInt32 只是将它们转换回字节,将它们反转,然后再次将它们转换为 UInt32 似乎很浪费。 -
我同意,但是,这种情况很少见,reverseByteOrder 标志几乎总是设置为 false。
-
在 dotnet core 中,我会使用一种二进制原语读/写方法来避免创建数组和转换字节顺序。 docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/…
标签: c# .net performance .net-4.0 c#-7.3