C# foreach vs for loop: Which is faster and when to use each

When it comes to iterating over collections in C#, the performance difference between foreach and for loops primarily depends on the collection type being traversed.

For arrays and Lists, a traditional for loop with indexing can be marginally faster because it avoids the overhead of creating an enumerator object, especially in performance-critical scenarios.

The foreach loop internally creates an IEnumerator, which adds a small memory allocation and method call overhead.

However, for most modern applications, this performance difference is negligible and often optimized away by the JIT compiler.

The readability benefits of foreach typically outweigh the minor performance gains of for loops in non-critical code paths.

Collections like LinkedList or those implementing only IEnumerable actually perform better with foreach since they don't support efficient random access.

The rule of thumb: use foreach for readability in most cases, and only switch to for loops when benchmarking shows a meaningful performance improvement in your specific high-performance scenarios.

Example

// Collection to iterate
List<int> numbers = Enumerable.Range(1, 10000).ToList();

// Using for loop
public void ForLoopExample(List<int> items)
{
    int sum = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < items.Count; i++)
    {
        sum += items[i];
    }
    // For loop can be slightly faster for List<T> and arrays
    // because it avoids creating an enumerator
}

// Using foreach loop 
public void ForEachLoopExample(List<int> items)
{
    int sum = 0;
    foreach (int item in items)
    {
        sum += item;
    }
    // More readable and works well for any collection type
    // Preferred for most scenarios where performance isn't critical
}

// For a LinkedList, foreach is typically faster
public void LinkedListExample(LinkedList<int> linkedItems)
{
    int sum = 0;
    // This would be inefficient with a for loop since LinkedList
    // doesn't support efficient indexing
    foreach (int item in linkedItems)
    {
        sum += item;
    }
}
4
218

Related

Slow initial load times can drive users away from your React application. One powerful technique to improve performance is lazy loading - loading components only when they're needed.

Let's explore how to implement this in React.

The Problem with Eager Loading

By default, React bundles all your components together, forcing users to download everything upfront. This makes navigation much quicker and more streamlined once this initial download is complete.

However, depending on the size of your application, it could also create a long initial load time.

import HeavyComponent from './HeavyComponent';
import AnotherHeavyComponent from './AnotherHeavyComponent';

function App() {
  return (
    <div>
      {/* These components load even if user never sees them */}
      <HeavyComponent />
      <AnotherHeavyComponent />
    </div>
  );
}

React.lazy() to the Rescue

React.lazy() lets you defer loading components until they're actually needed:

import React, { lazy, Suspense } from 'react';

// Components are now loaded only when rendered
const HeavyComponent = lazy(() => import('./HeavyComponent'));
const AnotherHeavyComponent = lazy(() => import('./AnotherHeavyComponent'));

function App() {
  return (
    <div>
      <Suspense fallback={<div>Loading...</div>}>
        <HeavyComponent />
        <AnotherHeavyComponent />
      </Suspense>
    </div>
  );
}

Route-Based Lazy Loading

Combine with React Router for even better performance:

import React, { lazy, Suspense } from 'react';
import { BrowserRouter, Routes, Route } from 'react-router-dom';

const Home = lazy(() => import('./pages/Home'));
const Dashboard = lazy(() => import('./pages/Dashboard'));
const Settings = lazy(() => import('./pages/Settings'));

function App() {
  return (
    <BrowserRouter>
      <Suspense fallback={<div>Loading...</div>}>
        <Routes>
          <Route path="/" element={<Home />} />
          <Route path="/dashboard" element={<Dashboard />} />
          <Route path="/settings" element={<Settings />} />
        </Routes>
      </Suspense>
    </BrowserRouter>
  );
}

Implement these techniques in your React application today and watch your load times improve dramatically!

1
104

When working with URLs in C#, encoding is essential to ensure that special characters (like spaces, ?, &, and =) don’t break the URL structure. The recommended way to encode a string for a URL is by using Uri.EscapeDataString(), which converts unsafe characters into their percent-encoded equivalents.

string rawText = "hello world!";
string encodedText = Uri.EscapeDataString(rawText);

Console.WriteLine(encodedText); // Output: hello%20world%21

This method encodes spaces as %20, making it ideal for query parameters.

For ASP.NET applications, you can also use HttpUtility.UrlEncode() (from System.Web), which encodes spaces as +:

using System.Web;

string encodedText = HttpUtility.UrlEncode("hello world!");
Console.WriteLine(encodedText); // Output: hello+world%21

For .NET Core and later, Uri.EscapeDataString() is the preferred choice.

28
1250

In C#, you can format an integer with commas (thousands separator) using ToString with a format specifier.

int number = 1234567;
string formattedNumber = number.ToString("N0"); // "1,234,567"
Console.WriteLine(formattedNumber);

Explanation:

"N0": The "N" format specifier stands for Number, and "0" means no decimal places. The output depends on the culture settings, so in regions where , is the decimal separator, you might get 1.234.567.

Alternative:

You can also specify culture explicitly if you need a specific format:

using System.Globalization;

int number = 1234567;
string formattedNumber = number.ToString("N0", CultureInfo.InvariantCulture);
Console.WriteLine(formattedNumber); // "1,234,567"
4
444