stringBuilderObject = new StringBuilder(); // Let the GC do its job
Paul Betts
2009-12-17 01:54:40
+3
A:
Having to reallocate a string builder object may be as bad as just trying to use a normal string performance wise, depending on how its being used and why its being cleared.
instanceofTom
2009-12-17 01:57:34
That was my first thought, too. But what about the (albeit probably uncommon) case where a StringBuilder is passed as an argument to a method? Your version doesn't do the trick, whereas stringBuilder.Remove(0, stringBuilder.Length) always works.
Dathan
2009-12-17 01:57:46
@Dathan, good observation
instanceofTom
2009-12-17 02:01:51
Having to reallocate a string builder object may be as bad as just trying to use a normal string performance wise, depending on how its being used and why its being cleared.
instanceofTom
2009-12-17 01:56:59
This is what I ended up going with but I may go to the Length = 0. Though that seems like it might have memory issues?
bobber205
2009-12-17 02:09:29
@bobber205: From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.text.stringbuilder.remove.aspx: "The current method removes the specified range of characters from the current instance. [...] and the string value of the current instance is shortened by length. The capacity of the current instance is unaffected." So, your memory issues are unaffected by choosing this method over StringBuilder.Length = 0; If you're worried about memory, you need to set StringBuilder.Capacity = some_small_number as well.
Dathan
2009-12-17 13:36:16
+1
A:
Duplicate http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1709471/best-way-to-clear-contents-of-nets-stringbuilder
duckworth
2009-12-17 01:55:42