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
197

Related

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.

27
1053

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
153

Reading a file line by line is useful when handling large files without loading everything into memory at once.

✅ Best Practice: Use File.ReadLines() which is more memory efficient.

Example

foreach (string line in File.ReadLines("file.txt"))
{
    Console.WriteLine(line);
}

Why use ReadLines()?

Reads one line at a time, reducing overall memory usage. Ideal for large files (e.g., logs, CSVs).

Alternative: Use StreamReader (More Control)

For scenarios where you need custom processing while reading the contents of the file:

using (StreamReader reader = new StreamReader("file.txt"))
{
    string? line;
    while ((line = reader.ReadLine()) != null)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(line);
    }
}

Why use StreamReader?

Lets you handle exceptions, encoding, and buffering. Supports custom processing (e.g., search for a keyword while reading).

When to Use ReadAllLines()? If you need all lines at once, use:

string[] lines = File.ReadAllLines("file.txt");

Caution: Loads the entire file into memory—avoid for large files!

3
281