Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 601745
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T16:44:55+00:00 2026-05-13T16:44:55+00:00

I have large amount of data been passed around in my application as byte[]

  • 0

I have large amount of data been passed around in my application as byte[] objects. Which is also turing out to be memory problems in a lot of cases. What about if i wrap byte[] in a class like

[Serializable]
public class MyClass
{
public byte[] Data { get; set; }
}

Do you guys think i would gain any performance becoz now a reference type would be passed around rather a value type ,hence data doesnt have to be copied every time.

Looking forward to your answers

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T16:44:55+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 4:44 pm

    Why should it make an improvement? It can only make things worse. A byte[] is a reference type itself, not a value type. The effect will be one unnecessary level of indirection and heap allocation for the class.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Well, I have been working with large amount of network data. In which I
I have a simulation in which I need to dump large amount of data,
I have server 1 which is generating a large amount of data, e.g there
I have a large amount of data I need to store, and be able
I have a large amount of data in a database. When I attempt to
I have a large amount of data to sort and query, and I can't
I have a rather large amount of data (100 MB or so), that I
I have a table with large amount of data and want to take too
I have a windows service that receives a large amount of data that needs
Alright. So I have a very large amount of binary data (let's say, 10GB)

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.