|
hi,
i am having problem in date time function while i am doing windows application.i am always getting date along with constant time 12:00:00AM.Which i dont want it.i want the exact time .plz give me some idea how can i do this in windows application.
THANKS IN ADVANCE.
|
|
|
|
|
DateTime.Now;
Harvey Saayman - South Africa
Software Developer
.Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer && you.Passion != Programming)
1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111
|
|
|
|
|
Where are you getting this date time value from? If it is from a database, then you may need to correct this in your query.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand. DateTime.Now will get the current date and time from the system. If you just want the time part and not the date, then you can use DateTime.TimeOfDay.
A good summary of time and Date handling in .NET is at http://dotnetperls.com/datetime-1[^]
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
show code!
|
|
|
|
|
I needed 2 instances of a complete string array and I did write like this
string[] bigArray = new string[int.MaxValue];
Now, I sure got Out of memory exception, which make sense. But I couldn't find any way to make a big array. I need it to get the value very quickly.Like I write this
int somevalue = 15632427;
string tvalue = bigArray[somevalue];
I have these types of values in thousands, I tried to iterate each item which were stored in a List but it was too slow.
The last thing left is to use Dictionary but it can't beat array. Now, I'm just thinking if any of you guys know any better way ?
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
What version of the framework are you using? If you are using 3.5 you can use Linq to find items in a collection rather iterating
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using 2.0, I usually use it for public application as lots of people don't get updated.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Then you are making it more difficult on yourself
Most will get it with Windows update because they accept the defaults
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Nischalke wrote: Then you are making it more difficult on yourself
Yes it is, but not that much I can't handle.
Mark Nischalke wrote: Most will get it with Windows update because they accept the defaults
But some guys don't update. And I hate when they send me email or shout in my site about app crashing.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Keeping in mind that linq just performs the iteration on your behalf. It will still be just as slow.
If you have a large keyspace, and the keyspace is sparsely filled, and you wish to look up values by key quickly. Then you should definitely, definitely, use a dictionary instead of a list or an array.
|
|
|
|
|
Xmen W.K. wrote: string[] bigArray = new string[int.MaxValue];
Are you really planning on using 2.1 Billion strings in your app? I seriously doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
As I wrote above, I needed to retrieve value quickly. I knew what I was doing, just asked for better way. So please read the question properly.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
A dictionary is designed to retrieve a key quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Read the last line[^]
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
A dictionary isn't much slower than an array for lookup values and it also gaurantees constant time lookup no matter how many entries are in the dictionary.
Besides, You were going to try a list? Lists are shitloads slower than a dictionary for lookup performance. You need to get a basic understanding of data structures;
Dictionary is pretty much your only choice.
|
|
|
|
|
oh common man, what are you ? dont you get it yet ? I just asked if there is better way or NOT ?
thats it... I know what is List, Dictionary or Array. So please if you have anything better then come with that not with what I've said above.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Dictionaries are designed to give the highest possible performance to lookup a key
This is what you want to do
There is as you put it 'no other way'
|
|
|
|
|
You still haven't answered the question.
Are you seriously going to use 2,147,483,648 strings in your app? Why and What for? And don't give me this "highest performance" garbage again. That's doesn't explain anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I didnt say it will have, it may have. It depends on the condition and Im not here to read the whole book for you. So either you answer the question what asked or keep your pie hole off.
Nice work to vote the message down. Thats all you could do.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
The entire reason for asking the question is to explore OTHER possiblities since you can't possible create an array the size that you want. Why? Because the array size alone, wihtout ANY data in the strings at all, would occupy over 8 GB of memory (2.14 Billion * 4 bytes per pointer) and requires a single contiguous block of memory. Now, add on all the data in the strings themselves and this memory size just gets higher and higher. I hope your customer is using a 64-bit O/S, 'cause this isn't going to happen in 32-bit.
Xmen W.K. wrote: either you answer the question what asked or keep your pie hole off.
Jackass...
Xmen W.K. wrote: Nice work to vote the message down. Thats all you could do.
I didn't vote it down...
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: The entire reason for asking the question is to explore OTHER possiblities
I asked a simple question, in yes or no or any other way.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: since you can't possible create an array the size that you want. Why? Because the array size alone, wihtout ANY data in the strings at all, would occupy over 8 GB of memory (2.14 Billion * 4 bytes per pointer) and requires a single contiguous block of memory. Now, add on all the data in the strings themselves and this memory size just gets higher and higher. I hope your customer is using a 64-bit O/S, 'cause this isn't going to happen in 32-bit.
of course, I dont want to use array but something like that works fast as array.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Xmen W.K. wrote: I asked a simple question, in yes or no or any other way.
With insufficient detail. All you asked was if there was anything faster for accessing the data. You didn't provide any details about the data itself or how it was being used. This missing information is what would have changed the answer to something more appropriate.
Bottom line is that there is nothing that's going to be as fast, or faster than an array. Since you've got HUGE memory requirements, your management code is going to add overhead, no matter what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno what else you expect as sufficient. Plus I cannot write everything to ask a simple question, I provided that code snippet which was quite enough to explain everything.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
you failed to explain properly.
if you need an array, i.e. a non-sparse indexed collection then array and List are best;
if you need a dictionary, even when the key is integer but the data is sparse, then nothing beats Dictionary.
List and Dictionary are based on arrays; they offer stretchability and Dictionary also offers sparseness.
The main way to ruin their performance while gathering the data is by not ensuring a sufficient initial capacity.
All the relevant information is in the documentation.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
