C# CircularBuffer 高效实现（线程安全和非线程安全）
声明：本页面是StackOverFlow热门问题的中英对照翻译，遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议，如果您需要使用它，必须同样遵循CC BY-SA许可，注明原文地址和作者信息，同时你必须将它归于原作者（不是我）：StackOverFlow
原文地址: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13275975/
Warning: these are provided under cc-by-sa 4.0 license. You are free to use/share it, But you must attribute it to the original authors (not me):
StackOverFlow
CircularBuffer highly efficient implementation (both thread-safe and not thread-safe)
提问by javapowered
Could someone suggest good CircularBuffer implementation? I need both "not thread-safe" and "thread-safe" versions. I expect following operations:
有人可以建议好的 CircularBuffer 实现吗？我需要“非线程安全”和“线程安全”版本。我期望以下操作：
- ability to provide size of the buffer when creating
- adding elements
- iterating elements
- removing elements while iterating
- probably removing elements
- 创建时提供缓冲区大小的能力
- 添加元素
- 迭代元素
- 迭代时删除元素
- 可能删除元素
I expect implementation to be highly optimized in terms of speed and used memory, average and worst times etc.
我希望在速度和使用的内存、平均和最坏时间等方面对实现进行高度优化。
I expect "not thread-safe" implementation to be extremely fast. I expect "thread-safe" implementation to be fast, probably using "lock-free code" for synchronization and it's ok to have some restrictions if this is required for speed.
我希望“非线程安全”的实现非常快。我希望“线程安全”实现很快，可能使用“无锁代码”进行同步，如果速度需要，可以有一些限制。
If buffer is too small to store new (added) element it's ok to silenty override existent element or raise exception.
如果缓冲区太小而无法存储新的（添加的）元素，则可以静默覆盖现有元素或引发异常。
Should I use disruptor.net?
我应该使用disruptor.net吗？
Adding link to a good example Disruptor.NET example
添加到一个好的示例Disruptor.NET 示例的链接
采纳答案by Servy
Not thread safe:
不是线程安全的：
System.Collections.Generic.Queue
System.Collections.Generic.Queue
Thread safe:
线程安全：
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentQueue
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentQueue
or
或者
System.Collections.Concurrent.BlockingCollection(which uses a concurrent queue by default internally)
System.Collections.Concurrent.BlockingCollection（内部默认使用并发队列）
Although technically you really shouldn't use the term "thread safe".It's simply too ambiguous. The first is not designed to be used concurrently by multiple threads, the rest are.
虽然从技术上讲你真的不应该使用术语“线程安全”。简直太模棱两可了。第一个不是设计为由多个线程并发使用，其余的是。
