Performance in .NET – Part 4


This is my fourth post on performance in the .NET world. See the first one on object instantiation here and the second on property copying here and the third here. This time I’m going to talk about collections, but focusing on the performance side.This time, I’ll be talking about value types.

Value Types versus Reference Types

Value types – structs and enums – are always allocated in the stack, as opposed to reference types – classes – , which are allocated in the heap. This means that value types are automatically released from memory when they go out of scope – end of the block/method where they are declared, or the class is garbage collected, which is more rare. Value types are thus cheaper to create and do not need to be checked by the garbage collector.

Some aspects, though, need attention.

Instance Comparison

When you compare two value types using the Equals method, if there is no override for it, the value type is compared byte by byte. This is, as you can image, pretty inefficient. Is is recommended that you implement your own Equals (and GetHashCode too) and also that you implement IEquatable<T> interface for comparing two instances of your value type without incurring into boxing and unboxing.

Usage in Lists

Storing value types in array-based lists that permit reordering (random insertions and deletions), such as List<T> is painful, because of the items need to be copied, and copying for value types means byte by byte copying. Avoid if possible.

Usage in Arrays

Value types are great for usage in arrays, because a value type has no object header, so it’s size in memory is very small. The size of the array is therefore small when compared to the same array of reference types.


Do use value types as much as possible, but stay aware of the problems. As always, looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I’ll be back for more.

Performance in .NET – Part 3


This post is part of a series on performance in .NET. See the first one on object instantiation here and the second on property copying here. This time I’m going to talk about collections, but focusing on the performance side.


Back in 2009 (!) I wrote a blog post, which I updated a couple of times, about .NET collection types. Essentially, my point was – is – that you should pick the right collection for the job that you have at hands. This post is still up to date.

How many of us don’t by default just choose List<T> when there is need for a general-purpose collection? I certainly do, at times… Well, it turns out that this may or may not be what we need. Let me give a few examples.

List<T> is an array-based collection, which means that it is probably the best if you are going to iterate through items one at a time, sequentially, but it is not so good if you want to remove items from a random position other than the list’s end, because this causes a whole new array to be instantiated in memory, and all items (except the one that you wish to remove, of course) from the original list to be copied into the new one. It’s the same problem with random inserts at any given position, other than the end, and only if the initial capacity isn’t exceeded.

For operations where random inserts and deletes are required, LinkedList<T> is a much better choice as it does not require the instantiation of new arrays and the memory copy. It does that, however, at the expense of a slightly poorer performance in list traversal.

What about duplicates? With the previous list implementations, if we don’t want to allow duplicates, we need to check one by one, which is a PITA. Luckily, the .NET BCL has an implementation of a mathematical set which automatically excludes duplicates. One implementation is HashSet<T>, which is an indexed collection that uses each object’s GetHashCode method to figure out if the object already exists in the collection; needless to say, this method must be properly implemented.

Talking about indexed collections, if we want to be able to rapidly get to one element – or a number of elements – by some key, .NET has that as well: Dictionary<TKey, TValue> for storing a single value per unique key. The key can be of whatever type we want. This one also offers good performance when it comes to retrieving, adding, removing or modifying a single item.

Then we have LIFO and FIFO implementations in the form of the Stack<T> and Queue<T> types, which are optimized for adding items at the top or the bottom of the list, respectively, and don’t even allow other kinds of operations other than traversal. Internally they also use a linked-list approach.

Bits have their own specialized collections, BitArray and BitVector32. The latter only works with up to 32 bits and it probably provides the fastest performance of the two, according to Microsoft:

BitVector32 is more efficient than BitArray for Boolean values and small integers that are used internally. A BitArray can grow indefinitely as needed, but it has the memory and performance overhead that a class instance requires. In contrast, a BitVector32 uses only 32 bits.

Finally, Microsoft makes available thread-safe collections that are thread-safe in nature and therefore do not need any thread synchronization mechanisms, which makes them faster than if we had to roll out our own thread synchronization. They include thread-safe dictionaries (ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, TValue>), queues (ConcurrentQueue<T>), stacks (ConcurrentStack<T>) and general-purpose lists (BlockingCollection<T>).


I didn’t go through all the collection classes available, for that you can refer to my previous post.

The point I want to make with this post is:

  • Pick the right collection for the job; use the 80-20 rule and try to understand what the most common usage for your collection will be; do not just go blindly with List<T> or similar
  • Always expose collections publicly though interfaces or base classes that only show the bare minimum required, so that you can swap out the implementation should you need to
  • And, of course, measure your usage so that you can make opinionated decisions.

If performance is not an issue, by all means, forget about this and keep on doing what you are already doing and works for you.

Performance in .NET – Part 2


This is the second in a series of posts about performance in the .NET ecosystem. On the first post, that you can find here, I talked about object instantiation. This time, it’s object cloning.

Object Cloning

You should be aware that there are two types of cloning:

  • Deep cloning: clones the root object and each reference its properties points to
  • Shallow cloning: clones the root object but each reference any of its properties points to is kept, that is, is also pointed to, not cloned

Microsoft defines one interface, ICloneable, which is implemented by a couple of classes, but doesn’t really say much about the type of cloning that it does. In fact, Microsoft actually advises against using it.

Sometimes we definitely need to make a copy of an existing object. This includes creating a new instance and then populating it with the values (or copies of) for the properties of the initial class. We have a few options:

  • Using the built-in MemberwiseClone method
  • Implementing our own cloning strategy
  • Using an object-to-object mapper
  • Serializing and deserializing

Memberwise Shallow Clone

The Object class defines a MemberwiseClone method that the documentation describes as doing a shallow copy of the current object. Because this is defined for Object, all classes inherit it, and it will make a copy of all fields declared along the class hierarchy. But, alas, being generic also means that it is not particularly suited for any concrete scenario. It uses it uses FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject to create a “blank” instance of your class and then reflection to iterate through all of the instance fields of your class and makes a bitwise copy of them. Because of the reflection part, it’s probably not the fastest solution.

Custom Clone

Here you need to decide if you’re going for a shallow or a deep strategy, and depending on that, things can be more or less complicated. In general, a shallow copy is faster and simpler to implement as we know exactly what properties to copy, and you can even go for a shallow or a deep copy. An option is to use an object mapper.

Using a Mapper

Using a mapper such as Automapper can prove very useful as it can do lots of things out-of-the-box for you and still leave you space to handle any more complex situations. There are many out there, but Automapper is probably the most popular but there are alternatives:

So, the idea is, you construct the target instance (the copy) yourself and then you use the mapper to copy from the current instance into it. A decent mapper can use conventions to copy without requiring any configuration, but it will still require some reflection magic.

Serializing and Deserializing

This one, like using a mapper, also requires a third-party library. There are plenty out there, even included in the .NET framework, that can do this. This may seem like an overkill if you’re just trying to get a clone of your current object, but it works, and it is usually one of the easiest ways to get a deep copy. This is usually used for transmitting an object’s state over the wire, in any format that can be binary or text-based, and it can go back as well, translating this state back into a class. Usually also not the fastest approach, especially for complex object graphs.


Performance-wise, you’re probably better off by rolling out your cloning method, which will probably be unique for each class. This avoids reflection and serialization (which also uses reflection). Just make it clear to everyone that you’re implementing a shallow or a deep copy.

Performance in .NET – Part 1

Updated: thanks, Paulo Morgado!


Along the years I wrote a couple of posts about performance in the .NET world. Some were more tied to specific frameworks, such as NHibernate or Entity Framework, while others focus on the generic bits. In this series of posts I will summarize my findings on .NET in general, namely:

  • Object creation (this post)
  • Object cloning
  • Value Types versus Reference Types
  • Collections
  • Possibly other stuff

I won’t be talking about object serialization, as there are lots of serializers out there, each with its pros and cons. In general, I’d say either serializing to and from JSON or from a binary format seem to be the most demanded ones, and each has quite a few options, either provided by Microsoft or from third parties. The actual usage also affects what we want – is it a general-purpose serializer or one for a particular usage, that needs classes prepared accordingly? Let’s keep it out of this discussion.

As always, feel free to reach out to me if you want to discuss any of these! So, lets start with object creation.

Object Creation

Let’s start with object creation and by defining our purpose: we want to be able to create object instances of a certain type as fast as possible. We have a couple of strategies:

Let’s cover them all one by one.

Using the new Operator

This is the most obvious (and fast), but does not play well with dynamic instantiation, meaning, the type to instantiate needs to be hardcoded. I call it direct instantiation, and it goes as this (you know, you know…):

var obj = new Xpto();

This should be the baseline for all performance operations, as it should offer the best possible performance.

Using Reflection

Here I’m caching the public parameterless constructor and invoking it, then casting the result to the target type:

var ci = typeof(Xpto).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes);<br />var obj = ci.Invoke(null) as Xpto;

Just avoid getting the constructor over and over again, do it once for each type then cache it somewhere.

Using FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject

The GetUninitializedObject method is used internally by some serializers and what it does is, it merely allocates memory for the target type and zeroes all of its fields, without actually running any constructor. This has the effect that any explicitly declared field and property values will be lost, so use with care. It is available in .NET Core:

var obj = FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(typeof(Xpto)) as Xpto;

Pay attention that none of the constructors of your type are executed, and no fields or properties have their initial values set, other than the default value for each type (null for reference types, the default for value types).

Using System.Reflection.Emit code generation

This one uses the code generation library that is built-in with .NET (but not .NET Core, for the time being):

var m = new DynamicMethod(string.Empty, typeof(object), null, typeof(Xpto), true);<br />var ci = typeof(Xpto).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes);<br />var il = m.GetILGenerator();<br />il.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, ci);<br />il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret);<br />var creator = m.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<object>)) as Func<object>;<br />var obj = creator() as Xpto;

As you can see, we are just generating code for a dynamic method, providing a simple content that does “new Xpto()”, and execute it.

Using Activator.CreateInstance

This is essentially a wrapper around the reflection code I’ve shown earlier, with the drawback that it does not cache each types’ public parameterless constructor:

var obj = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(Xpto)) as Xpto;

Using LINQ expressions

The major drawback of this approach is the time it takes to build the actual code (the first call to Compile). After that, it should be fast:

var ci = typeof(Xpto).GetConstructor(Type.EmptyTypes);<br />var expr = Expression.New(ci);<br />var del = Expression.Lambda(expr).Compile();<br />var obj = del.DynamicInvoke() as Xpto;

Of course, if you are to call this a number of times for the same type, it may be worth caching the constructor for each type.

Using Delegates

The LINQ expressions approach actually compiles to this one, but this is strongly typed:

Func<Xpto> del = () => new Xpto();<br />var obj = del();

Using Roslyn

This one is relatively new in .NET. As you may know, Microsoft now uses Roslyn to both parse and generate code dynamically. The scripting capabilities are made available through the Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Scripting NuGet package. The actual code for instantiating a class (or actually executing any code) dynamically goes like this:

var obj = CSharpScript.EvaluateAsync("new Xpto()").GetAwaiter().GetResult() as Xpto;

Do keep in mind that Roslyn is asynchronous by nature, so you need to wait for the result, also, do add the full namespace of your type, which I omitted for brevity. There are other APIs that allow you to compile code and reuse the compilation:

var script = CSharpScript.Create<Xpto>("new Xpto()", ScriptOptions.Default.AddReferences(typeof(Xpto).Assembly));<br />var runner = script.CreateDelegate();<br />var obj = runner().GetAwaiter().GetResult();


Feel free to run your tests, with a few iterations, and look at the results. Always compare with the normal way to create objects, the new operator. Do not forget the problems with each approach, like the need to cache something or any limitations on the instantiated object.

In my machine, for 1000 iterations, a couple times for the same run, I get these average results (elapsed ticks):

Technique Delay
Direct 0.148
FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject 0.324
Activator.CreateInstance 0.296
Reflection 0.6
IL 0.557
LINQ Expression 4.085
Delegate 0.109
Roslyn 2400.796

Some of these may be surprising to you, as they were to me! It seems that reflection is not that much slower than direct instantiation as one might think… hmmm…

As usual, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this! More to come soon! Winking smile

Detecting Default Values of Value Types

Func<object, bool> func = (obj) => obj.Equals(default(Int32));

Func<object, bool> func = (obj) => obj.Equals(default(Int32));


I don’t know if this happened to you: the need to find out if some instance of a class is the class’ default value. For reference types – which include nullables -, it is always null, and for value types, it is the value that you get if you do not initialize a field of that type or if you call its default parameterless constructor – false for Boolean, 0 for numbers, the 0 member of an enumeration, etc. So, the problem is, how can we tell if some instance represents this default value, dynamically, that is, for any value type, not just a specific one.

Again, nothing special, just the result of a lazy Saturday afternoon, still, hope you see some value in it! Winking smile

Take 0: Direct Comparison

How would we compare a built-in type instance, like int, with its default value? Just compare it with 0. This is useful to see how each of the other techniques compare to it.

static bool IsDefaultDirect(int obj)


    return obj.Equals(0);


Take 1: Comparison With a New Instance

An easy way is to compare the value we have with a new instance of the same type, like this:

static bool IsDefaultUsingConstruction(ValueType obj)


    return obj.Equals(Activator.CreateInstance(obj.GetType()));


Activator.CreateInstance knows how to create a default instance of a value type, so we’re good.

Take 2: Using Generics Directly

Another option is to use the ability to compare a generic variable with the default value for the generic type. This cannot be used in exactly the same way as #1, because here we need to explicitly call the comparison method with a generic parameter:

static bool IsDefaultUsingGeneric<T>(T obj) where T : struct


    return obj.Equals(default(T));


Notice the struct constraint, it is exactly the same as declaring the parameter as ValueType, because it is the base class for all value types.

Take 3: Using Generics Dynamically

You can make the previous example dynamic, with the cost of an additional method invocation, like this:

static bool IsDefaultUsingReflection(ValueType obj)


    //cache this, please

    var isDefaultUsingGenericMethod = typeof(Program).GetMethod("IsDefaultUsingGeneric", BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.NonPublic);

    var method = isDefaultUsingGenericMethod.MakeGenericMethod(obj.GetType());

    return (bool) method.Invoke(null, new object[] { obj });


Take 4: Using a LINQ Expression Bound to a Specific Type

Another option is to dynamically compile a LINQ expression that performs the comparison, something like this:

Func<T, bool> func = (obj) => obj.Equals(default(T));

We can create this expression dynamically, and bind it to the desired value type:

static bool IsDefaultUsingLinq(ValueType obj)


    var argType = obj.GetType();

    var arguments = new Expression[] { Expression.Default(argType) };

    var paramExpression = Expression.Parameter(argType, "x");


    var equalsMethod = argType.GetMethod("Equals", new Type[] { argType });

    var call = Expression.Call(paramExpression, equalsMethod, arguments);


    var lambdaArgType = typeof(Func<,>).MakeGenericType(argType, typeof(bool));

    var lambdaMethod = LambdaMethod.MakeGenericMethod(lambdaArgType);


    var expression = lambdaMethod.Invoke(null, new object[] { call, new ParameterExpression[] { paramExpression } }) as LambdaExpression;


    //cache this, please

    Delegate func = expression.Compile();


    return (bool)func.DynamicInvoke(obj);


Take 5: Using a LINQ Expression Bound to Object

A very similar option to #4 is to use Object.Equals instead of the value type’s specific Equals method, like this:

Func<object, bool> func = (obj) => obj.Equals(default(int));

Of course, the int parameter depends on the actual type of the value type parameter being passed:

static readonly MethodInfo LambdaMethod = typeof(Expression).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public).First(x => x.Name == "Lambda" && x.GetParameters()[1].ParameterType == typeof(ParameterExpression[]));

static readonly MethodInfo EqualsMethod = typeof (object).GetMethod("Equals", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public);


static bool IsDefaultUsingLinqObject(ValueType obj)


    var argType = typeof(object);

    var arguments = new Expression[] { Expression.Convert(Expression.Default(obj.GetType()), argType) };

    var equalsMethod = EqualsMethod;

    var paramExpression = Expression.Parameter(argType, "x");

    var call = Expression.Call(paramExpression, equalsMethod, arguments);

    var lambdaArgType = typeof(Func<object, bool>);

    var lambdaMethod = LambdaMethod.MakeGenericMethod(lambdaArgType);

    var expression = lambdaMethod.Invoke(null, new object[] { call, new ParameterExpression[] { paramExpression } }) as Expression<Func<object, bool>>;


    //cache this, please

    Func<object, bool> func = expression.Compile();


    return func(obj);


Because the comparison expression, of type Func<object, bool>, is strongly typed, we avoid the need to call Delegate.DynamicInvoke, the performance increases substantially.

Take 6: Using Formatter Services

A long, long time ago, in a distance galaxy, I already mentioned, en passant, the usage of FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject to create instances of a type. Picking up example #1, let’s replace Activator.CreateInstance by FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject and see the gains:

static bool IsDefaultUsingFormatterServices(ValueType obj)


    return obj.Equals(FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject(obj.GetType()));


Take 7: Using a LINQ Expression Bound to a Specific Type and Using Invocation Through Dynamics

What a long name… Smile Well, this one is identical to #4, but without Delegate.DynamicInvoke. Instead, I make use of the dynamic type’s late binding to invoke the delegate, which results in even better performance:

static readonly MethodInfo LambdaMethod = typeof(Expression).GetMethods(BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public).First(x => x.Name == "Lambda" && x.GetParameters()[1].ParameterType == typeof(ParameterExpression[]));


static bool IsDefaultUsingLinqAndDynamic(ValueType obj)


    var argType = obj.GetType();

    var arguments = new Expression[] { Expression.Default(argType) };

    var paramExpression = Expression.Parameter(argType, "x");

    var equalsMethod = argType.GetMethod("Equals", new Type[] { argType });

    var call = Expression.Call(paramExpression, equalsMethod, arguments);

    var lambdaArgType = typeof(Func<,>).MakeGenericType(argType, typeof(bool));

    var lambdaMethod = LambdaMethod.MakeGenericMethod(lambdaArgType);

    var expression = lambdaMethod.Invoke(null, new object[] { call, new ParameterExpression[] { paramExpression } }) as LambdaExpression;


    //cache this, please

    Delegate func = expression.Compile();


    dynamic arg = obj;

    dynamic del = func;


    return del(arg);



I put in two methods for measuring calls and doing averages:

static long MeasureTicks(Action action)


    var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();




    return watch.ElapsedTicks;



static float Measure(int times, Action action)


    var avg = 0L;


    for (var i = 0; i < times; ++i)


        avg += MeasureTicks(action);



    return (float)avg / times;


I used a Stopwatch to obtain the ElapsedTicks of the method to be exercised. I changed the methods I presented, namely, #4, #5 and #7, so as to cache the types and delegates created dynamically, this is crucial, and I leave that as an exercise to you – just remember that each method can potencially be called with different values, of different types. Then I added a warm-up step, which exercises the code using an integer parameter:

static void Warmup(int value)


    var times = 1;

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultDirect(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingConstruction(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingGeneric(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingReflection(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingLinq(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingLinqObject(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingFormatterServices(value));

    Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingLinqAndDynamic(value));


In the past, I learned that a warm-up method – or lack of it – makes a huge difference.

I executed each option 100 times and got its results:

static void Measure()


    var times = 100;

    var value = 100;




    var m0 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultDirect(value));

    var m1 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingConstruction(value));

    var m2 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingGeneric(value));

    var m3 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingReflection(value));

    var m4 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingLinq(value));

    var m5 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingLinqObject(value));

    var m6 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingFormatterServices(value));

    var m7 = Measure(times, () => IsDefaultUsingLinqAndDynamic(value));


The results I got were:

Method Ticks Difference
#0: Direct Comparison 1.82 131.88%
#1: Comparison With a New Instance 1.92 139.13%
#2: Using Generics Directly 1.46 105.80%
#3: Using Generics Dynamically 6.9 500%
#4: Using a LINQ Expression Bound to a Specific Type 3.05 221.01%
#5: Using a LINQ Expression Bound to Object 1.61 116.67%
#6: Using Formatter Services 1.53
#7: Using a LINQ Expression Bound to a Specific Type and Using Invocation Through Dynamics 1.38 100%


I was really surprised that the direct comparison is actually – at least for integers – not the best way to see if a value is the default for its type! There’s a big range in results, and I can say that I was expecting that for #3. I knew that FormatterServices.GetUninitializedObject would give better results than Activator.CreateInstance, but I imagine this cannot be used with all types, because it doesn’t run the type’s constructor, possibly skipping some default initializations. I also knew that the performance of Delegate.DynamicInvoke is less than ideal, but it was interesting to see that dynamics can improve it.

As always, I’d love to see what you have to say! Do you see flaws in my approach, or do you know of any better solutions? Fire away! Winking smile