I have a Dictionary<int, object>
where the int
is a property of obj
. Is there a better data structure for this? I feel like using a property as the key is redundant.
This Dictionary<int, obj>
is a field in a container class that allows for random indexing into the obj
values based on an int
id number. The simplified (no exception handling) indexer in the container class would look like:
obj this[int id]
{
get{ return this.myDictionary[id];}
}
where myDictionary
is the aforementioned Dictionary<int, obj>
holding the objects.
This may be the typical way of quick random access but I wanted to get second opinions.
Second, a dictionary key must be of a type that is immutable. For example, you can use an integer, float, string, or Boolean as a dictionary key. However, neither a list nor another dictionary can serve as a dictionary key, because lists and dictionaries are mutable.
One can only put one type of object into a dictionary. If one wants to put a variety of types of data into the same dictionary, e.g. for configuration information or other common data stores, the superclass of all possible held data types must be used to define the dictionary.
Item[] Property. This property is used to get or set the value associated with the specified key in the Dictionary. Here, key is the Key of the value to get or set.
Dictionaries are Python's implementation of a data structure that is more generally known as an associative array. A dictionary consists of a collection of key-value pairs. Each key-value pair maps the key to its associated value.
There's no concrete class in the framework that does this. There's an abstract one though, KeyedCollection. You'll have to derive your own class from that one and implement the GetKeyForItem() method. That's pretty easy, just return the value of the property by which you want to index.
That's all you need to do, but do keep an eye on ChangeItemKey(). You have to do something meaningful when the property that you use as the key changes value. Easy enough if you ensure that the property is immutable (only has a getter). But quite awkward when you don't, the object itself now needs to have awareness of it being stored in your collection. If you don't do anything about it (calling ChangeItemKey), the object gets lost in the collection, you can't find it back. Pretty close to a leak.
Note how Dictionary<> side-steps this problem by specifying the key value and the object separately. You may still not be able to find the object back but at least it doesn't get lost by design.
There is a KeyedCollection class.
EDIT: The KeyedCollection can use a dictionary internally, but it cleaner interface for this particular scenario than a raw dictionary since you can lookup by values directly. Admittedly I don't find it very useful in general.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With