First off, I am running this on a dual core 2.66Ghz processor machine. I am not sure if I have the .AsParallel() call in the correct spot. I tried it directly on the range variable too and that was still slower. I don’t understand why…
Here are my results:
Process non-parallel 1000 took 146 milliseconds
Process parallel 1000 took 156 milliseconds
Process non-parallel 5000 took 5187 milliseconds
Process parallel 5000 took 5300 milliseconds
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
namespace DemoConsoleApp
{
internal class Program
{
private static void Main()
{
ReportOnTimedProcess(
() => GetIntegerCombinations(),
"non-parallel 1000");
ReportOnTimedProcess(
() => GetIntegerCombinations(runAsParallel: true),
"parallel 1000");
ReportOnTimedProcess(
() => GetIntegerCombinations(5000),
"non-parallel 5000");
ReportOnTimedProcess(
() => GetIntegerCombinations(5000, true),
"parallel 5000");
Console.Read();
}
private static List<Tuple<int, int>> GetIntegerCombinations(
int iterationCount = 1000, bool runAsParallel = false)
{
IEnumerable<int> range = Enumerable.Range(1, iterationCount);
IEnumerable<Tuple<int, int>> integerCombinations =
from x in range
from y in range
select new Tuple<int, int>(x, y);
return runAsParallel
? integerCombinations.AsParallel().ToList()
: integerCombinations.ToList();
}
private static void ReportOnTimedProcess(
Action process, string processName)
{
var stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();
process();
stopwatch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Process {0} took {1} milliseconds",
processName, stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
}
}
It’s slightly slower because PLINQ has a certain overhead (threads, scheduling, etc) so you have to pick carefully what you will parallelize. This particular code you’re benchmarking isn’t really worth parallelizing, you have to parallelize over tasks with significant load, otherwise the overhead will weight more than the benefits of parallelization.