Most efficient way to randomly “sort” (Shuffle) a

Question

I need to randomly 'sort' a list of integers (0-1999) in the most efficient way possible. Any ideas?

Currently, I am doing something like this:

bool[] bIndexSet = new bool[iItemCount];

for (int iCurIndex = 0; iCurIndex < iItemCount; iCurIndex++)
{
    int iSwapIndex = random.Next(iItemCount);
    if (!bIndexSet[iSwapIndex] && iSwapIndex != iCurIndex)
    {
        int iTemp = values[iSwapIndex];
        values[iSwapIndex] = values[iCurIndex];
        values[iCurIndex] = values[iSwapIndex];
        bIndexSet[iCurIndex] = true;
        bIndexSet[iSwapIndex] = true;
    }
}

Answer 1

Wouldn't something like this work?

var list = new[]{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15};
var random = new Random();
list.Sort((a,b)=>random.Next(-1,1));

Answer 2

what about :

System.Array.Sort(arrayinstance, RandomizerMethod);
...
//any evoluated random class could do it !
private static readonly System.Random Randomizer = new System.Random();

private static int RandomizerMethod<T>(T x, T y)
    where T : IComparable<T>
{
    if (x.CompareTo(y) == 0)
        return 0;

    return Randomizer.Next().CompareTo(Randomizer.Next());
}

voila!

Answer 3

I am not sure of the efficiency factor, but I have used something similar to the following, if you aren't opposed to using an ArrayList:

private ArrayList ShuffleArrayList(ArrayList source)
{
    ArrayList sortedList = new ArrayList();
    Random generator = new Random();

    while (source.Count > 0)
    {
        int position = generator.Next(source.Count);
        sortedList.Add(source[position]);
        source.RemoveAt(position);
    }

    return sortedList;
}

Using this, you do not have to worry about the intermediate swapping.

Answer 4

itemList.OrderBy(x=>Guid.NewGuid()).Take(amount).ToList()

Answer 5

ICR's answer is very fast, but the resulting arrays aren't distributed normally. If you want a normal distribution, here's the code:

    public static IEnumerable<T> RandomPermutation<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, int start,int end)
    {
        T[] array = sequence as T[] ?? sequence.ToArray();

        var result = new T[array.Length];

        for (int i = 0; i < start; i++)
        {
            result[i] = array[i];
        }
        for (int i = end; i < array.Length; i++)
        {
            result[i] = array[i];
        }

        var sortArray=new List<KeyValuePair<double,T>>(array.Length-start-(array.Length-end));
        lock (random)
        {
            for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
            {
                sortArray.Add(new KeyValuePair<double, T>(random.NextDouble(), array[i]));
            }
        }

        sortArray.Sort((i,j)=>i.Key.CompareTo(j.Key));

        for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
        {
            result[i] = sortArray[i - start].Value;
        }

        return result;
    }

Note that in my tests, this algorithm was 6 times slower than the one ICR provided, however this is the only way I could come up with to get a normal result distribution

Answer 6

static Random random = new Random();

public static IEnumerable<T> RandomPermutation<T>(IEnumerable<T> sequence)
{
    T[] retArray = sequence.ToArray();


    for (int i = 0; i < retArray.Length - 1; i += 1)
    {
        int swapIndex = random.Next(i, retArray.Length);
        if (swapIndex != i) {
            T temp = retArray[i];
            retArray[i] = retArray[swapIndex];
            retArray[swapIndex] = temp;
        }
    }

    return retArray;
}

modified to handle lists or other objects implementing IEnumerable