views:

249

answers:

4

What is the purpose of the LongLength property for arrays in .Net. Using a standard integer for length, you could accommodate up to 2 billion indices. Are there really people using .Net to maintain a single array with more the 2 billion elements. Even if each element was a single byte, that would still be 2 GB of data. Is it feasible to use such a large array in .Net?

+1  A: 

It's very possible to have an array with more than 2 Billion entries in a 64 bit scenario. LongLength is indeed meant to support such scenarios.

As to whether or not that is actually used. I can say with certainty that there is some customer, somewhere, that considers this a vital business need. Customers find uses for features that you've never thought possible.

JaredPar
+3  A: 

For example, if you had a > 2 GB file and needed to read it all into memory at once, that would call for such an array. Not that that is necessarily a recommended approach most of the time, but there could well be some case (on a powerful enough 64 bit system with a lot of memory anyway) that this might be required (maybe for performance reasons?).

Edit: Of course, it should be noted that as of CLR 2.0, having an array > 2 GB isn't actually supported (all the implementation of LongLength does is cast Length into a long, and attempting to create a bigger array will fail)... but maybe Microsoft is planning to add support later...?

Eric Rosenberger
+1  A: 

Plus it returns the total number of elements in all the dimensions of the Array so it can be an array with "just" a half billion elements and 4 dimensions to make it needed to be 64-bit int.

Stefan
Isn't that still 2 billion elements in total?
Kibbee
Yes of course, what I mean is that if you think "why would anyone want to handle 2 billion elements" it could seem more reasonable if was just a half billion elements but with some attatched properties in related dimensions.
Stefan
+2  A: 

There's a school of thought known as the "0, 1 or N" school which believes that you should have either:

  • none of something;
  • one of something; or
  • any number of something, as resources permit.

In other words, don't set arbitrary limits if you don't have to. Arbitrary limits have given us such monstrosities as:

  • the 640K limit in early PCs.
  • buffer overflow vulnerabilities.
  • the hideous LBA disk addressing scheme.

Keep in mind that even two billion 64-bit integers only takes up

            17,179,869,184 bytes of the
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes of 64-bit address space available.

That's less than 1 thousand-millionth, or 10^-9, or you could have many millions of these massive arrays before running out of address space.

That's forward thinking :-) .

paxdiablo
Also known as 1 billionth...
TraumaPony
Yeah, I thought of that but I can never remember whether there's a discrepancy between the US and European billion (one being 10^9, the other being 10^12). I couldn't be bothered Googling it so I took the safe option.
paxdiablo