LINQ 将列表分区为 8 个成员的列表

发布于 2024-09-25 04:13:36 字数 291 浏览 6 评论 0 原文

如何获取一个列表(使用 LINQ)并将其分解为一个列表列表,并在每 8 个条目上对原始列表进行分区?

我想像这样的事情会涉及 Skip 和/或 Take,但我对 LINQ 还很陌生。

编辑:使用 C# / .Net 3.5

Edit2:这个问题的措辞与其他“重复”问题不同。虽然问题很相似,但这个问题的答案更好:“接受”的答案都非常可靠(带有 yield 语句),以及 Jon Skeet 使用 MoreLinq 的建议(不推荐)在“其他”问题中。)有时重复是好的,因为它们迫使重新检查问题。

How would one take a List (using LINQ) and break it into a List of Lists partitioning the original list on every 8th entry?

I imagine something like this would involve Skip and/or Take, but I'm still pretty new to LINQ.

Edit: Using C# / .Net 3.5

Edit2: This question is phrased differently than the other "duplicate" question. Although the problems are similar, the answers in this question are superior: Both the "accepted" answer is very solid (with the yield statement) as well as Jon Skeet's suggestion to use MoreLinq (which is not recommended in the "other" question.) Sometimes duplicates are good in that they force a re-examination of a problem.

如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群

发布评论

需要 登录 才能够评论, 你可以免费 注册 一个本站的账号。

评论(7

治碍 2024-10-02 04:13:36

使用以下扩展方法将输入分解为子集

public static class IEnumerableExtensions
{
    public static IEnumerable<List<T>> InSetsOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int max)
    {
        List<T> toReturn = new List<T>(max);
        foreach(var item in source)
        {
                toReturn.Add(item);
                if (toReturn.Count == max)
                {
                        yield return toReturn;
                        toReturn = new List<T>(max);
                }
        }
        if (toReturn.Any())
        {
                yield return toReturn;
        }
    }
}

Use the following extension method to break the input into subsets

public static class IEnumerableExtensions
{
    public static IEnumerable<List<T>> InSetsOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int max)
    {
        List<T> toReturn = new List<T>(max);
        foreach(var item in source)
        {
                toReturn.Add(item);
                if (toReturn.Count == max)
                {
                        yield return toReturn;
                        toReturn = new List<T>(max);
                }
        }
        if (toReturn.Any())
        {
                yield return toReturn;
        }
    }
}
满栀 2024-10-02 04:13:36

我们在 MoreLINQ 中有这样一个方法作为 批处理方法:

// As IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>>
var items = list.Batch(8);

// As IEnumerable<List<T>>
var items = list.Batch(8, seq => seq.ToList());

We have just such a method in MoreLINQ as the Batch method:

// As IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>>
var items = list.Batch(8);

or

// As IEnumerable<List<T>>
var items = list.Batch(8, seq => seq.ToList());
北渚 2024-10-02 04:13:36

您最好使用 MoreLinq 这样的库,但如果您确实必须使用“ plain LINQ”,您可以使用 GroupBy:

var sequence = new[] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16};

var result = sequence.Select((x, i) => new {Group = i/8, Value = x})
                     .GroupBy(item => item.Group, g => g.Value)
                     .Select(g => g.Where(x => true));

// result is: { {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}, {9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16} }

基本上,我们使用 Select() 的版本,它为正在使用的值提供索引,我们将索引以 8 来标识每个值属于哪个组。然后我们通过这个分组键对序列进行分组。最后一个 Select 只是将 IGrouping<> 简化为 IEnumerable> (并且并不是严格必要的,因为IGrouping 是一个IEnumerable)。

通过分解示例中的常量 8 并将其替换为指定的参数,可以很容易地将其转换为可重用的方法。
它不一定是最优雅的解决方案,也不再是一个懒惰的流式解决方案……但它确实有效。

您还可以使用迭代器块 (yield return) 编写自己的扩展方法,这可以为您提供比 GroupBy 更好的性能并使用更少的内存。这就是 MoreLinq 的 Batch() 方法的 IIRC 功能。

You're better off using a library like MoreLinq, but if you really had to do this using "plain LINQ", you can use GroupBy:

var sequence = new[] {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16};

var result = sequence.Select((x, i) => new {Group = i/8, Value = x})
                     .GroupBy(item => item.Group, g => g.Value)
                     .Select(g => g.Where(x => true));

// result is: { {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}, {9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16} }

Basically, we use the version of Select() that provides an index for the value being consumed, we divide the index by 8 to identify which group each value belongs to. Then we group the sequence by this grouping key. The last Select just reduces the IGrouping<> down to an IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> (and isn't strictly necessary since IGrouping is an IEnumerable).

It's easy enough to turn this into a reusable method by factoring our the constant 8 in the example, and replacing it with a specified parameter.
It's not necessarily the most elegant solution, and it is not longer a lazy, streaming solution ... but it does work.

You could also write your own extension method using iterator blocks (yield return) which could give you better performance and use less memory than GroupBy. This is what the Batch() method of MoreLinq does IIRC.

離殇 2024-10-02 04:13:36

这根本不是 Linq 最初设计者的初衷,但请看看 GroupBy 的误用:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> BatchBy<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int batchSize)
{
    var count = 0;
    return items.GroupBy(x => (count++ / batchSize)).ToList();
}

[TestMethod]
public void BatchBy_breaks_a_list_into_chunks()
{
    var values = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
    var batches = values.BatchBy(3);
    batches.Count().ShouldEqual(4);
    batches.First().Count().ShouldEqual(3);
    batches.Last().Count().ShouldEqual(1);
}

我认为它赢得了这个问题的“高尔夫”奖。 ToList 非常重要,因为您希望在尝试对输出执行任何操作之前确保已实际执行分组。如果删除 ToList,您会得到一些奇怪的副作用。

It's not at all what the original Linq designers had in mind, but check out this misuse of GroupBy:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> BatchBy<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int batchSize)
{
    var count = 0;
    return items.GroupBy(x => (count++ / batchSize)).ToList();
}

[TestMethod]
public void BatchBy_breaks_a_list_into_chunks()
{
    var values = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 };
    var batches = values.BatchBy(3);
    batches.Count().ShouldEqual(4);
    batches.First().Count().ShouldEqual(3);
    batches.Last().Count().ShouldEqual(1);
}

I think it wins the "golf" prize for this question. The ToList is very important since you want to make sure the grouping has actually been performed before you try doing anything with the output. If you remove the ToList, you will get some weird side effects.

旧城烟雨 2024-10-02 04:13:36

Take 的效率不会很高,因为它不会删除已获取的条目。

为什么不使用一个简单的循环:

public IEnumerable<IList<T>> Partition<T>(this/* <-- see extension methods*/ IEnumerable<T> src,int num)  
{  
    IEnumerator<T> enu=src.getEnumerator();  
    while(true)  
    {  
        List<T> result=new List<T>(num);  
        for(int i=0;i<num;i++)  
        {  
            if(!enu.MoveNext())  
            {  
                if(i>0)yield return result;  
                yield break;  
            }  
            result.Add(enu.Current);  
        }  
        yield return result;  
    }  
}

Take won't be very efficient, because it doesn't remove the entries taken.

why not use a simple loop:

public IEnumerable<IList<T>> Partition<T>(this/* <-- see extension methods*/ IEnumerable<T> src,int num)  
{  
    IEnumerator<T> enu=src.getEnumerator();  
    while(true)  
    {  
        List<T> result=new List<T>(num);  
        for(int i=0;i<num;i++)  
        {  
            if(!enu.MoveNext())  
            {  
                if(i>0)yield return result;  
                yield break;  
            }  
            result.Add(enu.Current);  
        }  
        yield return result;  
    }  
}
痴情 2024-10-02 04:13:36
from b in Enumerable.Range(0,8) select items.Where((x,i) => (i % 8) == b);
from b in Enumerable.Range(0,8) select items.Where((x,i) => (i % 8) == b);
屋檐 2024-10-02 04:13:36

Mel 给出了最简单的解决方案:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, 
                                                       int partitionSize)
{
    int i = 0;
    return items.GroupBy(x => i++ / partitionSize).ToArray();
}

简洁但速度较慢。上述方法将 IEnumerable 拆分为所需固定大小的块,块的总数并不重要。要将 IEnumerable 拆分为 N 个大小相等或接近相等大小的块,您可以执行以下

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Split<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, 
                                                   int numOfParts)
{
    int i = 0;
    return items.GroupBy(x => i++ % numOfParts);
}

操作: 为了加快速度,可以使用一种简单的方法:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, 
                                                       int partitionSize)
{
    if (partitionSize <= 0)
        throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("partitionSize");

    int innerListCounter = 0;
    int numberOfPackets = 0;
    foreach (var item in items)
    {
        innerListCounter++;
        if (innerListCounter == partitionSize)
        {
            yield return items.Skip(numberOfPackets * partitionSize).Take(partitionSize);
            innerListCounter = 0;
            numberOfPackets++;
        }
    }

    if (innerListCounter > 0)
        yield return items.Skip(numberOfPackets * partitionSize);
}

这比目前地球上的任何东西都快:) < code>Split 操作此处

The simplest solution is given by Mel:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, 
                                                       int partitionSize)
{
    int i = 0;
    return items.GroupBy(x => i++ / partitionSize).ToArray();
}

Concise but slower. The above method splits an IEnumerable into chunks of desired fixed size with total number of chunks being unimportant. To split an IEnumerable into N number of chunks of equal sizes or close to equal sizes, you could do:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Split<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, 
                                                   int numOfParts)
{
    int i = 0;
    return items.GroupBy(x => i++ % numOfParts);
}

To speed up things, a straightforward approach would do:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, 
                                                       int partitionSize)
{
    if (partitionSize <= 0)
        throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("partitionSize");

    int innerListCounter = 0;
    int numberOfPackets = 0;
    foreach (var item in items)
    {
        innerListCounter++;
        if (innerListCounter == partitionSize)
        {
            yield return items.Skip(numberOfPackets * partitionSize).Take(partitionSize);
            innerListCounter = 0;
            numberOfPackets++;
        }
    }

    if (innerListCounter > 0)
        yield return items.Skip(numberOfPackets * partitionSize);
}

This is faster than anything currently on planet now :) The equivalent methods for a Split operation here

~没有更多了~
我们使用 Cookies 和其他技术来定制您的体验包括您的登录状态等。通过阅读我们的 隐私政策 了解更多相关信息。 单击 接受 或继续使用网站,即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
原文