Faster alternative to nested loops?

Question

I have a need to create a list of combinations of numbers. The numbers are quite small so I can use byte rather than int. However it requires many

Answer 1

Method 1

One way to make it faster is to specify the capacity if you plan to keep using List, like this.

var data = new List(2 * 3 * 4 * 3 * 4 * 3 * 3 * 4 * 2 * 4 * 4 * 3 * 4);

Method 2

Furthermore, you could use System.Array directly to gain faster access. I recommend this approach if your question insists that every element be physically populated in memory, upfront.

var data = new byte[2 * 3 * 4 * 3 * 4 * 3 * 3 * 4 * 2 * 4 * 4 * 3 * 4][];
int counter = 0;

for (byte a = 0; a < 2; a++)
    for (byte b = 0; b < 3; b++)
        for (byte c = 0; c < 4; c++)
            for (byte d = 0; d < 3; d++)
                for (byte e = 0; e < 4; e++)
                    for (byte f = 0; f < 3; f++)
                        for (byte g = 0; g < 3; g++)
                            for (byte h = 0; h < 4; h++)
                                for (byte i = 0; i < 2; i++)
                                    for (byte j = 0; j < 4; j++)
                                        for (byte k = 0; k < 4; k++)
                                            for (byte l = 0; l < 3; l++)
                                                for (byte m = 0; m < 4; m++)
                                                    data[counter++] = new[] { a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m };

This takes 596ms to complete on my computer, which is about 10.4% faster than the code in question (which takes 658ms).

Method 3

Alternatively, you can use the following technique for low cost initialization that suits access in a sparse fashion. This is especially favorable when only some elements may be needed and determining them all upfront is considered unnecessary. Moreover, techniques like these may become the only viable option when working with more vast elements when memory runs short.

In this implementation every element is left to be determined lazily, on-the-fly, upon access. Naturally, this comes at a cost of additional CPU that is incurred during access.

class HypotheticalBytes
{
    private readonly int _c1, _c2, _c3, _c4, _c5, _c6, _c7, _c8, _c9, _c10, _c11, _c12;
    private readonly int _t0, _t1, _t2, _t3, _t4, _t5, _t6, _t7, _t8, _t9, _t10, _t11;

    public int Count
    {
        get { return _t0; }
    }

    public HypotheticalBytes(
        int c0, int c1, int c2, int c3, int c4, int c5, int c6, int c7, int c8, int c9, int c10, int c11, int c12)
    {
        _c1 = c1;
        _c2 = c2;
        _c3 = c3;
        _c4 = c4;
        _c5 = c5;
        _c6 = c6;
        _c7 = c7;
        _c8 = c8;
        _c9 = c9;
        _c10 = c10;
        _c11 = c11;
        _c12 = c12;
        _t11 = _c12 * c11;
        _t10 = _t11 * c10;
        _t9 = _t10 * c9;
        _t8 = _t9 * c8;
        _t7 = _t8 * c7;
        _t6 = _t7 * c6;
        _t5 = _t6 * c5;
        _t4 = _t5 * c4;
        _t3 = _t4 * c3;
        _t2 = _t3 * c2;
        _t1 = _t2 * c1;
        _t0 = _t1 * c0;
    }

    public byte[] this[int index]
    {
        get
        {
            return new[]
            {
                (byte)(index / _t1),
                (byte)((index / _t2) % _c1),
                (byte)((index / _t3) % _c2),
                (byte)((index / _t4) % _c3),
                (byte)((index / _t5) % _c4),
                (byte)((index / _t6) % _c5),
                (byte)((index / _t7) % _c6),
                (byte)((index / _t8) % _c7),
                (byte)((index / _t9) % _c8),
                (byte)((index / _t10) % _c9),
                (byte)((index / _t11) % _c10),
                (byte)((index / _c12) % _c11),
                (byte)(index % _c12)
            };
        }
    }
}

This takes 897ms to complete on my computer (also creating & adding to an Array as in Method 2), which is about a 36.3% slower than the code in question (which takes 658ms).