There are two ways to read data from RichTextBox line by line
1 ) use a for loop to loop through lines of a richtextBox
String s=String.Empty;
for(in
Probably because finding the next line in the textbox takes time. When you use random-access by indexing in the first case, it must find that line from scratch. When the iteration is done internally by foreach
, it can retain state and quickly find the next line.
This should make the first case run in O(n^2) time, while the second runs in O(n).
As Mehrdad noted, accessing the Lines
property takes a long time. You need to be careful here - you're accessing it twice in each iteration at the moment:
String s = String.Empty;
for (int i = 0; i < richTextBox.Lines.Length; i++)
{
s = richTextBox.Lines[i];
}
Even if you remove the access in the body of the loop like this:
String s = String.Empty;
for (int i = 0; i < richTextBox.Lines.Length; i++)
{
}
you're still accessing Lines
on every iteration to see if you've finished!
If you don't want to foreach
, you can just fetch Lines
once:
string[] lines = richTextBox.Lines;
for (int i = 0; i < lines.Length; i++)
{
s = lines[i];
}
Personally I prefer the foreach
unless you really need the index though :)
Could it be that each line is being copied to a new string variable (str) on each loop? I'm guissing here, but you could probably verify the theory with this code
String s = String.Empty;
for (int i = 0; i < richTextBox.Lines.Length; i++)
{
string str = richTextBox.Lines[i];
s = str;
}
.NET Reflector is very useful to determine why you're seeing performance you don't expect.
Give it a try to look at the Lines
get
accessor to see what it actually does each time you access it.
I think the Lines
property is recalculated every time you want to access it. Consequently, the foreach
method performs the calculation only once, while every time your reference Lines[i]
it's re-evaluating the whole thing. Try caching the result of Lines
property and checking again:
String s = String.Empty;
var lines = richtextbox.Lines;
for(int i = 0; i < lines.Length; i++)
{
s = lines[i];
}
By the way, your question makes an implicit assumption that foreach
is always slower than for
. This is not always true.