Update 2011-05-20 12:49AM: The foreach is still 25% faster than the parallel solution for my application. And don’t use the collection count for max parallelism, use somthing closer to the number of cores on your machine.
=
I have an IO bound task that I would like to run in parallel. I want to apply the same operation to every file in a folder. Internally, the operation results in a Dispatcher.Invoke that adds the computed file info to a collection on the UI thread. So, in a sense, the work result is a side effect of the method call, not a value returned directly from the method call.
This is the core loop that I want to run in parallel
foreach (ShellObject sf in sfcoll)
ProcessShellObject(sf, curExeName);
The context for this loop is here:
var curExeName = Path.GetFileName(Assembly.GetEntryAssembly().Location);
using (ShellFileSystemFolder sfcoll = ShellFileSystemFolder.FromFolderPath(_rootPath))
{
//This works, but is not parallel.
foreach (ShellObject sf in sfcoll)
ProcessShellObject(sf, curExeName);
//This doesn't work.
//My attempt at PLINQ. This code never calls method ProcessShellObject.
var query = from sf in sfcoll.AsParallel().WithDegreeOfParallelism(sfcoll.Count())
let p = ProcessShellObject(sf, curExeName)
select p;
}
private String ProcessShellObject(ShellObject sf, string curExeName)
{
String unusedReturnValueName = sf.ParsingName
try
{
DesktopItem di = new DesktopItem(sf);
//Up date DesktopItem stuff
di.PropertyChanged += new PropertyChangedEventHandler(DesktopItem_PropertyChanged);
ControlWindowHelper.MainWindow.Dispatcher.Invoke(
(Action)(() => _desktopItemCollection.Add(di)));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
return unusedReturnValueName ;
}
Thanks for any help!
+tom
Your query object created via LINQ is an IEnumerable. It gets evaluated only if you enumerate it (eg. via foreach loop):