Minimize LINQ string token counter

Question

Followup on answer to an earlier question.

Is there a way to further reduce this, avoiding the external String.Split call? The goal is an associative container of {token, count}.

string src = "for each character in the string, take the rest of the " +
    "string starting from that character " +
    "as a substring; count it if it starts with the target string";

string[] target = src.Split(new char[] { ' ' });

var results = target.GroupBy(t => new
{
    str = t,
    count = target.Count(sub => sub.Equals(t))
});

Answer 1

While 3-4 times slower, the Regex method is arguably more accurate:

string src = "for each character in the string, take the rest of the " +
    "string starting from that character " +
    "as a substring; count it if it starts with the target string";

var regex=new Regex(@"\w+",RegexOptions.Compiled);
var sw=new Stopwatch();

for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
    var dic=regex
        .Matches(src)
        .Cast<Match>()
        .Select(m=>m.Value)
        .GroupBy(s=>s)
        .ToDictionary(g=>g.Key,g=>g.Count());
    if(i==1000)sw.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine(sw.Elapsed);

sw.Reset();

for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
    var dic=src
        .Split(' ')
        .GroupBy(s=>s)
        .ToDictionary(g=>g.Key,g=>g.Count());
    if(i==1000)sw.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine(sw.Elapsed);

For instance, the Regex method won't count string and string, as two separate entries, and will correctly tokenise substring instead of substring;.

EDIT

Read your previous question and realise my code doesn't quite conform to your spec. Regardless, it still demonstrates the advantage/cost of using Regex.

Answer 2

As you have it right now, it will work (to some extent) but is terribly inefficient. As is, the result is an enumeration of groupings, not the (word, count) pairs you might be thinking.

That overload of GroupBy() takes a function to select the key. You are effectively performing that calculation for every item in the collection. Without going the route of using regular expressions ignoring punctuation, it should be written like so:

string src = "for each character in the string, take the rest of the " +
             "string starting from that character " +
             "as a substring; count it if it starts with the target string";

var results = src.Split()               // default split by whitespace
                 .GroupBy(str => str)   // group words by the value
                 .Select(g => new
                              {
                                  str = g.Key,      // the value
                                  count = g.Count() // the count of that value
                              });

// sort the results by the words that were counted
var sortedResults = results.OrderByDescending(p => p.str);

Answer 3

Here's a LINQ version without ToDictionary(), which may add unnecessary overhead depending on your needs...

var dic = src.Split(' ').GroupBy(s => s, (str, g) => new { str, count = g.Count() });

Or in query syntax...

var dic = from str in src.Split(' ')
          group str by str into g
          select new { str, count = g.Count() };

Answer 4

Getting rid of String.Split doesn't leave many options on the table. One option is Regex.Matches as spender demonstrated, and another is Regex.Split (which doesn't give us anything new).

Rather than grouping you could use either of these approaches:

var target = src.Split(new[] { ' ', ',', ';' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries);
var result = target.Distinct()
                   .Select(s => new { Word = s, Count = target.Count(w => w == s) });

// or dictionary approach
var result = target.Distinct()
                   .ToDictionary(s => s, s => target.Count(w => w == s));

The Distinct call is needed to avoid duplicate items. I went ahead and expanded the characters to split on to get the actual words devoid of punctuation. I found the first approach to be the quickest using spender's benchmarking code.

Back to the requirement to order the results from your previously referenced question, you could easily extend the first approach as follows:

var result = target.Distinct()
                   .Select(s => new { Word = s, Count = target.Count(w => w == s) })
                   .OrderByDescending(o => o.Count);

// or in query form

var result = from s in target.Distinct()
             let count = target.Count(w => w == s)
             orderby count descending
             select new { Word = s, Count = count };

EDIT: got rid of the Tuple since the anonymous type was close at hand.