[Mono-dev] Should we replace MemoryStream?
skolima at gmail.com
Tue Nov 10 07:21:57 EST 2009
Choice is not always good, and I think this is one of the cases when
the default (i.e. the MemoryStream implementation) should make the
choices instead presenting them to the user. Though I agree that the
case of constructing a MemoryStream from an existing byte would
require a special path in the code, as this is a stream that most
likely won't be resized and in this case users are expecting the
constructor to have a complexity of O(1) and GetBuffer to also be
O(1). The same expectation is probably also true with a fixed size
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:09 PM, pablosantosluac at terra.es
<pablosantosluac at terra.es> wrote:
> I agree (especially thinking about the chunk-pool I mentioned) having
> separate classes can be better, so that everyone can choose.
> Andreas Nahr wrote:
>> I'm still not sure this is a good idea. A lot of this depends on the
>> use-case for MemoryStream.
>> 1) A MemoryStream is created with a parameterless constructor and then a lot
>> of data written to it multiple times the ChunkedStream will be better
>> 2) If a MemoryStream is created with a parameterless constructor and only
>> gets a few bytes long ChunkedStream might bring considerable overhead.
>> 3) If MemoryStream is created with a fixed size then ChunkedStream will be
>> somewhat, but acceptably slower and have a higher overhead. But it will be
>> totally abysmal once GetBuffer comes into play.
>> 4) If MemoryStream is constructed from a (large) byte array (in the
>> scientific field I'm coming from this is by far the most common usage I've
>> seem; that is basically using MemoryStream as a (read-only) Stream-Wrapper
>> around a byte array) then performance will be abysmal when constructing (if
>> you chunkify e.g. a 500MB byte array) AND again with GetBuffer (recreate the
>> array). So would be O (n) or even O (2*n) instead of O (0).
>> It might be possible to create an implementation that can deal with all this
>> (would need to have variable sized buffers, keep things it gets passed in
>> the constructor alive with small overhead, etc.), but it will be quite
>> complex and come with a large base overhead. And even then the GetBuffer
>> O(n) problem remains in a few scenarios.
>> Maybe it would be better to just leave the class as is and document that for
>> certain scenarios alternative implementations are available that do a MUCH
>> better job. Everybody can easily replace the use of MemoryStream with an
>> alternative implementation if needed. But nobody expects this class to
>> behave completely different from how it originally did (and seems to do in
> Mono-devel-list mailing list
> Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
More information about the Mono-devel-list