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;
    }
}
3
201

Related

Closing a SqlDataReader correctly prevents memory leaks, connection issues, and unclosed resources. Here’s the best way to do it.

Use 'using' to Auto-Close

Using using statements ensures SqlDataReader and SqlConnection are closed even if an exception occurs.

Example

using (SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
{
    conn.Open();
    using (SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT * FROM Users", conn))
    using (SqlDataReader reader = cmd.ExecuteReader())
    {
        while (reader.Read())
        {
            Console.WriteLine(reader["Username"]);
        }
    } // ✅ Auto-closes reader here
} // ✅ Auto-closes connection here

This approach auto-closes resources when done and it is cleaner and less error-prone than manual closing.

⚡ Alternative: Manually Close in finally Block

If you need explicit control, you can manually close it inside a finally block.

SqlDataReader? reader = null;
try
{
    using SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connectionString);
    conn.Open();
    using SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("SELECT * FROM Users", conn);
    reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();

    while (reader.Read())
    {
        Console.WriteLine(reader["Username"]);
    }
}
finally
{
    reader?.Close();  // ✅ Closes reader if it was opened
}

This is slightly more error prone if you forget to add a finally block. But might make sense when you need to handle the reader separately from the command or connection.

0
154

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"
3
391

When working with SQL Server, you may often need to count the number of unique values in a specific column. This is useful for analyzing data, detecting duplicates, and understanding dataset distributions.

Using COUNT(DISTINCT column_name)

To count the number of unique values in a column, SQL Server provides the COUNT(DISTINCT column_name) function. Here’s a simple example:

SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT column_name) AS distinct_count
FROM table_name;

This query will return the number of unique values in column_name.

Counting Distinct Values Across Multiple Columns

If you need to count distinct combinations of multiple columns, you can use a subquery:

SELECT COUNT(*) AS distinct_count
FROM (SELECT DISTINCT column1, column2 FROM table_name) AS subquery;

This approach ensures that only unique pairs of column1 and column2 are counted.

Why Use COUNT DISTINCT?

  • Helps in identifying unique entries in a dataset.
  • Useful for reporting and analytics.
  • Efficient way to check for duplicates.

By leveraging COUNT(DISTINCT column_name), you can efficiently analyze your database and extract meaningful insights. Happy querying!

0
112