ArrayList capacity

Meysam Mahfouzi

Is it possible to store more than int numbers in ArrayList object. If so, how can we retrieve number of stored items? Notice that Count property is of type int, and this is my problem!:doh:

Don't forget, that's

Persian Gulf

not Arabian gulf!

Frank Olorin Rizzi

I think I've read somehwere that this is a known limitation of the ArrayList. It may have been a book, it may be outdated as of the release of .NET 2003 or I may be wrong. But I recall something along the lines of "yes, you are limited to store [max int] items, but after all, if you have that many items, do you really want them in memory?" HTH, F.O.R.

Holger Persch

Remember that int is 32bit in .NET. This should be enough number of objects to store in memory. Regards, Holger

Philip Fitzsimons

ha ha - very funny!

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."

David Stone

What was funny about that? :confused:

I passionately hate the idea of being with it, I think an artist has always to be out of step with his time. -Orson Welles

Philip Fitzsimons

that an int is big enough.... try reading a large binary file.... byte[] BinaryReader.GetBytes(int count) I mean what stupid idiot thought that you would never want to read more than int.max? whay not a long?????? :doh:

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."

leppie

Philip Fitzsimons wrote: I mean what stupid idiot thought that you would never want to read more than int.max? whay not a long?????? The same stupid idiot that knows one cannot address more than 16gb memory... :doh: BTW Streams work with long, thus one can set the position virtually anywhere within a Stream and read a normal 4k/8k byte array at a time. leppie::AllocCPArticle("Zee blog");

David Stone

I would be worried about an app that loaded that much data at once. It's far more efficient to load smaller chunks and deal with them individually rather than do it all at the same time.

youd ebtter bnot be taki8ng agvantage o f my mental abilites!1 -David Wulff one night over MSN while totally plastered

Philip Fitzsimons

yes, but its mean if you want to caculate the hash for a large file you have to do alot of extra work..... though leppie did point out you can use a stream....

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."

Meysam Mahfouzi

David Stone wrote: It's far more efficient to load smaller chunks and deal with them individually rather than do it all at the same time. Yes, that is true when all objects are available before runtime(and stored somewhere). But what if all our required objects should be created at run-time, and be stored in memory? maybe I should create an ArrayList of Arraylists if needed!:doh:

Don't forget, that's

Persian Gulf

not Arabian gulf!