Geeks With Blogs
Abhishek Anand Bits & Bytes about .net technology framework.

In terms of performance some developers jump to the conclusion that Byte and Short would be generally more efficient since they require less room on the stack, but actually this is a common misnomer. Int32 (int) is actually more efficient than both Int16 (short) and Byte (byte) in most situations due to the fact that modern processors are optimized for use of 32 and 64 bit values. When a short (16 bit) or byte (8 bit) is read, the processor must read the entire 32 bits anyway and then apply a mask to the remaining bits, so it is actually less efficient to use these.

 

Even though this is true in most cases, there are some situations where using the smaller data types can be beneficial, and that’s where memory allocation is absolutely critical to application performance. A case where this applies is, for example, when you have extremely large collections of integer values where the values will never need more than 8 or 16 bits. When you encounter this situation, the space saved may be worth the extra instructions being run on the processor for use of these types. This is a special case, so in general it is considered best practice to use Int32 unless use of an alternative is absolutely necessary. 

Posted on Monday, November 18, 2013 7:11 PM .net | Back to top


Comments on this post: Use of Byte/Short

No comments posted yet.
Your comment:
 (will show your gravatar)


Copyright © Abhishek Anand | Powered by: GeeksWithBlogs.net