11

What's the most efficient way to convert a Dictionary to a formatted string.

e.g.:

My method:

public string DictToString(Dictionary<string, string> items, string format){

    format = String.IsNullOrEmpty(format) ? "{0}='{1}' " : format;

    string itemString = "";
    foreach(var item in items){
        itemString = itemString + String.Format(format,item.Key,item.Value);
    }

    return itemString;
}

Is there a better/more concise/more efficient way?

Note: the Dictionary will have at most 10 items and I'm not committed to using it if another similar "key-value pair" object type exists

Also, since I'm returning strings anyhow, what would a generic version look like?

swe
  • 1,416
  • 16
  • 26
Armstrongest
  • 15,181
  • 13
  • 67
  • 106
  • 1
    I think that's pretty efficient; just change it to use a `StringBuilder` instead string concatenation and you should be set. – Gabe Sep 03 '10 at 19:51

7 Answers7

23

I just rewrote your version to be a bit more generic and use StringBuilder:

public string DictToString<T, V>(IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<T, V>> items, string format)
{
    format = String.IsNullOrEmpty(format) ? "{0}='{1}' " : format; 

    StringBuilder itemString = new StringBuilder();
    foreach(var item in items)
        itemString.AppendFormat(format, item.Key, item.Value);

    return itemString.ToString(); 
}
Gabe
  • 84,912
  • 12
  • 139
  • 238
  • This won't work as you think - `IDictionary` is not compatible with `IDictionary` - you could make the value generic however. – Lee Sep 03 '10 at 20:02
  • That looks fine, +1 for using `IEnumerable`. – Lee Sep 03 '10 at 20:44
  • And with format=` "\t{{ {0}, {1} }},\n"`, you get output suitable for copypasting into C#! – idbrii Jul 18 '19 at 17:41
16
public string DictToString<TKey, TValue>(Dictionary<TKey, TValue> items, string format)
{
    format = String.IsNullOrEmpty(format) ? "{0}='{1}' " : format;
    return items.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(), (sb, kvp) => sb.AppendFormat(format, kvp.Key, kvp.Value)).ToString();
}
Lee
  • 142,018
  • 20
  • 234
  • 287
9

This method

public static string ToFormattedString<TKey, TValue>(this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dic, string format, string separator)
{
    return String.Join(
        !String.IsNullOrEmpty(separator) ? separator : " ",
        dic.Select(p => String.Format(
            !String.IsNullOrEmpty(format) ? format : "{0}='{1}'",
            p.Key, p.Value)));
}

used next way:

dic.ToFormattedString(null, null); // default format and separator

will convert

new Dictionary<string, string>
{
    { "a", "1" },
    { "b", "2" }
};

to

a='1' b='2'

or

dic.ToFormattedString("{0}={1}", ", ")

to

a=1, b=2

Don't forget an overload:

public static string ToFormattedString<TKey, TValue>(this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dic)
{
    return dic.ToFormattedString(null, null);
}

You can use generic TKey/TValue because any object has ToString() which will be used by String.Format().

And as far as IDictionary<TKey, TValue> is IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> you can use any. I prefer IDictionary for more code expressiveness.

abatishchev
  • 98,240
  • 88
  • 296
  • 433
3

Format dictionary in one line with Linq and string.Join() (C# 6.0):

Dictionary<string, string> dictionary = new Dictionary<string, string>()
{
    ["key1"] = "value1",
    ["key2"] = "value2"             
};

string formatted = string.Join(", ", dictionary.Select(kv => $"{kv.Key}={kv.Value}")); // key1=value1, key2=value2

You can create simple extension method like this:

public static class DictionaryExtensions
{
    public static string ToFormatString<TKey, TValue>(this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dictionary, string format = null)
    {
        format = string.IsNullOrEmpty(format) ? "{0}='{1}'" : format;
        return string.Join(", ", dictionary.Select(kv => string.Format(format, kv.Key, kv.Value)));
    }
}
BorisSh
  • 531
  • 4
  • 3
2

Sligtly improved version of the other answers, using extension methods and default parameters, and also wrapping key/value pairs in {}:

public static string ItemsToString<TKey, TValue>(this IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<TKey, TValue>> items, string format = "{0}='{1}' ")
{
    return items
        .Aggregate(new StringBuilder("{"), (sb, kvp) => sb.AppendFormat(format, kvp.Key, kvp.Value))
        .Append('}')
        .ToString();
}

The method can then be called directly from the dictionary/enumerable:

string s = myDict.ItemsToString()
dpnmn
  • 493
  • 2
  • 7
1

I think efficiency is hardly a concern with only 10 strings, but maybe you don't want to rely on it only being ten.

Concatenation of Strings creates a new String object in memory, since String objects are immutable. This also suggest other String operations may create new instances, like replace. Usually this is avoided by using StringBuilder.

StringBuilder avoids this by using a buffer which it operates on; when the value of the StringBuilder is concatenated with another String the contents are added to the end of the buffer.

However there are caveats, see this paragraph:

Performance considerations

[...]

The performance of a concatenation operation for a String or StringBuilder object depends on how often a memory allocation occurs. A String concatenation operation always allocates memory, whereas a StringBuilder concatenation operation only allocates memory if the StringBuilder object buffer is too small to accommodate the new data. Consequently, the String class is preferable for a concatenation operation if a fixed number of String objects are concatenated. In that case, the individual concatenation operations might even be combined into a single operation by the compiler. A StringBuilder object is preferable for a concatenation operation if an arbitrary number of strings are concatenated; for example, if a loop concatenates a random number of strings of user input.

So a (contrived) case like this should probably not be replaced with StringBuilder:

string addressLine0 = Person.Street.Name +  " " + Person.Street.Number + " Floor " + Person.Street.Floor;

...as the compiler might be able to reduce this to a more efficient form. It is also highly debatable if it would inefficient enough to matter in the greater scheme of things.

Following Microsoft's recommendations you probably want to use StringBuilder instead (like the other highly adequate answers show.)

Skurmedel
  • 21,515
  • 5
  • 53
  • 66
  • 1
    Nitpick: The fact that string concatenation using the `+` operator creates new `string` objects in memory is actually unrelated to the fact that the `string` type is immutable (though both are true). – Dan Tao Sep 03 '10 at 21:13
  • @Dan Tao: I'm a bit thick at the moment, could you elaborate on why? It seems String + String operations get special treatment from the compiler, does this have anything to do with it? – Skurmedel Sep 03 '10 at 21:28
  • @Skurmedal: So, the `+` operator is static, takes two arguments, and returns a new value. You could think of it, really, as a static method. Now, just because a method accepts two arguments and returns a new value does not imply that the type of the arguments is immutable. I could `Concat` two `List` objects together to get a new `IEnumerable` without affecting either `List`; this wouldn't be because `List` is immutable (it's not). It would just be the way `Concat` works. So even though `string` is immutable, it could just as easily *not* be -- as far as concatenation is concerned. – Dan Tao Sep 03 '10 at 21:46
  • @Skurmedal: To put it another way: any time I write `x = y + z;` I am assigning a new value to the variable `x`. This is unrelated to whether `x`'s type is immutable. Immutable type or not, *assigning a new value* is *always* going to change what's stored in a variable. So `x = y + z;` is going to change what's at `x`, no question. What's really *weird* to think about is that if the type were *mutable*, then you could conceivably write the statement `x = y + z;` *and actually change the value of `y` or `z`* (or both!) -- if the `+` operator for that type were defined to do so. – Dan Tao Sep 03 '10 at 21:56
0

Gabe, if you are going to be generic, be generic:

public string DictToString<T>(IDictionary<string, T> items, string format) 
{ 
    format = String.IsNullOrEmpty(format) ? "{0}='{1}' " : format;  

    StringBuilder itemString = new StringBuilder(); 
    foreach(var item in items) 
        itemString.AppendFormat(format, item.Key, item.Value); 

    return itemString.ToString();  
} 
James Curran
  • 101,701
  • 37
  • 181
  • 258
  • I originally meant generic in the "uses IDictionary instead of Dictionary" sense, but I was already doing what you suggested as you posted yours. – Gabe Sep 03 '10 at 20:03
  • @Gabe: The thing is I don't think you can pass a `Dictionary` as a `IDictionary` – James Curran Sep 03 '10 at 20:05
  • You're right; I just posted before I was really done writing the damn thing. – Gabe Sep 03 '10 at 20:07
  • @Gabe, @James: `StringBuilder` has next overload: `AppendFormat(string, object, object)` so you can use both generic - key and value – abatishchev Sep 03 '10 at 20:27
  • @abatishchev; I wasn't worried about StringBuilder. Gabe had changed the signature of the function. – James Curran Sep 03 '10 at 20:37