كيف يمكنك تحويل صفيف بايت إلى سلسلة سداسية عشرية، والعكس بالعكس؟

StackOverflow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/311165

  •  10-07-2019
  •  | 
  •  

سؤال

كيف يمكنك تحويل مصفوفة بايت إلى سلسلة سداسية عشرية، والعكس؟

هل كانت مفيدة؟

المحلول

وإما: 

public static string ByteArrayToString(byte[] ba)
{
  StringBuilder hex = new StringBuilder(ba.Length * 2);
  foreach (byte b in ba)
    hex.AppendFormat("{0:x2}", b);
  return hex.ToString();
}

وأو: 

public static string ByteArrayToString(byte[] ba)
{
  return BitConverter.ToString(ba).Replace("-","");
}

وهناك المزيد من المتغيرات للقيام بذلك، على سبيل المثال <لأ href = "https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/csharpgeneral/thread/3928b8cb-3703-4672-8ccd-33718148d1e3 / "يختلط =" noreferrer "> هنا .

وقال إن تحويل العكس مثل هذا التوجه: 

public static byte[] StringToByteArray(String hex)
{
  int NumberChars = hex.Length;
  byte[] bytes = new byte[NumberChars / 2];
  for (int i = 0; i < NumberChars; i += 2)
    bytes[i / 2] = Convert.ToByte(hex.Substring(i, 2), 16);
  return bytes;
}

وعن طريق Substring هو الخيار الأفضل في تركيبة مع Convert.ToByte. انظر هذه الإجابة للحصول على مزيد من المعلومات. إذا كنت بحاجة إلى أداء أفضل، يجب تجنب Convert.ToByte قبل أن تتمكن من إسقاط SubString.

نصائح أخرى

تحليل الأداء

ملحوظة:قائد جديد اعتبارا من 2015-08-20.

لقد قمت بتشغيل كل من طرق التحويل المختلفة من خلال بعض الخامات Stopwatch اختبار الأداء، تشغيل باستخدام جملة عشوائية (العدد = 61، 1000 تكرار) وتشغيل باستخدام نص مشروع جوتنبرج (العدد = 1،238،957، 150 تكرارًا).وإليكم النتائج، تقريبًا من الأسرع إلى الأبطأ.جميع القياسات موجودة في القراد (10000 علامة = 1 مللي ثانية) وتتم مقارنة جميع الملاحظات النسبية بـ [الأبطأ] StringBuilder تطبيق.للحصول على الكود المستخدم، انظر أدناه أو اختبار إطار الريبو حيث أحتفظ الآن برمز تشغيل هذا.

تنصل

تحذير:لا تعتمد على هذه الإحصائيات في أي شيء ملموس؛فهي مجرد عينة من بيانات العينة.إذا كنت تحتاج حقًا إلى أداء متميز، فيرجى اختبار هذه الأساليب في بيئة تمثل احتياجات الإنتاج الخاصة بك مع بيانات تمثل ما ستستخدمه.

نتائج

أخذت جداول البحث زمام المبادرة في التعامل مع البايت.في الأساس، هناك شكل من أشكال الحوسبة المسبقة لما سيكون عليه أي قرص أو بايت معين بالنظام الست عشري.بعد ذلك، أثناء قيامك بنسخ البيانات، ما عليك سوى البحث عن الجزء التالي لمعرفة السلسلة السداسية التي ستكون عليه.ثم تتم إضافة هذه القيمة إلى إخراج السلسلة الناتجة بطريقة ما.لفترة طويلة، كان التلاعب بالبايت، والذي قد يكون من الصعب قراءته من قبل بعض المطورين، هو الأسلوب الأفضل أداءً.

أفضل رهان لك هو العثور على بعض البيانات التمثيلية وتجربتها في بيئة شبيهة بالإنتاج.إذا كانت لديك قيود مختلفة على الذاكرة، فقد تفضل طريقة ذات تخصيصات أقل على طريقة أسرع ولكنها تستهلك المزيد من الذاكرة.

رمز الاختبار

لا تتردد في اللعب برمز الاختبار الذي استخدمته.يتم تضمين نسخة هنا ولكن لا تتردد في استنساخ الريبو وإضافة الأساليب الخاصة بك.يرجى إرسال طلب سحب إذا وجدت أي شيء مثير للاهتمام أو تريد المساعدة في تحسين إطار الاختبار الذي يستخدمه.

  1. أضف الطريقة الثابتة الجديدة (Func<byte[], string>) إلى /Tests/ConvertByteArrayToHexString/Test.cs.
  2. أضف اسم هذه الطريقة إلى TestCandidates قيمة الإرجاع في نفس الفئة.
  3. تأكد من تشغيل إصدار الإدخال الذي تريده، الجملة أو النص، عن طريق تبديل التعليقات GenerateTestInput في نفس الصف.
  4. يضرب F5 وانتظر الإخراج (يتم أيضًا إنشاء تفريغ HTML في المجلد /bin).
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringJoinArrayConvertAll(byte[] bytes) {
    return string.Join(string.Empty, Array.ConvertAll(bytes, b => b.ToString("X2")));
}
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringConcatArrayConvertAll(byte[] bytes) {
    return string.Concat(Array.ConvertAll(bytes, b => b.ToString("X2")));
}
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaBitConverter(byte[] bytes) {
    string hex = BitConverter.ToString(bytes);
    return hex.Replace("-", "");
}
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderAggregateByteToString(byte[] bytes) {
    return bytes.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(bytes.Length * 2), (sb, b) => sb.Append(b.ToString("X2"))).ToString();
}
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderForEachByteToString(byte[] bytes) {
    StringBuilder hex = new StringBuilder(bytes.Length * 2);
    foreach (byte b in bytes)
        hex.Append(b.ToString("X2"));
    return hex.ToString();
}
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderAggregateAppendFormat(byte[] bytes) {
    return bytes.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(bytes.Length * 2), (sb, b) => sb.AppendFormat("{0:X2}", b)).ToString();
}
static string ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderForEachAppendFormat(byte[] bytes) {
    StringBuilder hex = new StringBuilder(bytes.Length * 2);
    foreach (byte b in bytes)
        hex.AppendFormat("{0:X2}", b);
    return hex.ToString();
}
static string ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation(byte[] bytes) {
    char[] c = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    byte b;
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++) {
        b = ((byte)(bytes[i] >> 4));
        c[i * 2] = (char)(b > 9 ? b + 0x37 : b + 0x30);
        b = ((byte)(bytes[i] & 0xF));
        c[i * 2 + 1] = (char)(b > 9 ? b + 0x37 : b + 0x30);
    }
    return new string(c);
}
static string ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation2(byte[] bytes) {
    char[] c = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    int b;
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++) {
        b = bytes[i] >> 4;
        c[i * 2] = (char)(55 + b + (((b - 10) >> 31) & -7));
        b = bytes[i] & 0xF;
        c[i * 2 + 1] = (char)(55 + b + (((b - 10) >> 31) & -7));
    }
    return new string(c);
}
static string ByteArrayToHexViaSoapHexBinary(byte[] bytes) {
    SoapHexBinary soapHexBinary = new SoapHexBinary(bytes);
    return soapHexBinary.ToString();
}
static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookupAndShift(byte[] bytes) {
    StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder(bytes.Length * 2);
    string hexAlphabet = "0123456789ABCDEF";
    foreach (byte b in bytes) {
        result.Append(hexAlphabet[(int)(b >> 4)]);
        result.Append(hexAlphabet[(int)(b & 0xF)]);
    }
    return result.ToString();
}
static readonly uint* _lookup32UnsafeP = (uint*)GCHandle.Alloc(_Lookup32, GCHandleType.Pinned).AddrOfPinnedObject();
static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookup32UnsafeDirect(byte[] bytes) {
    var lookupP = _lookup32UnsafeP;
    var result = new string((char)0, bytes.Length * 2);
    fixed (byte* bytesP = bytes)
    fixed (char* resultP = result) {
        uint* resultP2 = (uint*)resultP;
        for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++) {
            resultP2[i] = lookupP[bytesP[i]];
        }
    }
    return result;
}
static uint[] _Lookup32 = Enumerable.Range(0, 255).Select(i => {
    string s = i.ToString("X2");
    return ((uint)s[0]) + ((uint)s[1] << 16);
}).ToArray();
static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookupPerByte(byte[] bytes) {
    var result = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
    {
        var val = _Lookup32[bytes[i]];
        result[2*i] = (char)val;
        result[2*i + 1] = (char) (val >> 16);
    }
    return new string(result);
}
static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookup(byte[] bytes) {
    string[] hexStringTable = new string[] {
        "00", "01", "02", "03", "04", "05", "06", "07", "08", "09", "0A", "0B", "0C", "0D", "0E", "0F",
        "10", "11", "12", "13", "14", "15", "16", "17", "18", "19", "1A", "1B", "1C", "1D", "1E", "1F",
        "20", "21", "22", "23", "24", "25", "26", "27", "28", "29", "2A", "2B", "2C", "2D", "2E", "2F",
        "30", "31", "32", "33", "34", "35", "36", "37", "38", "39", "3A", "3B", "3C", "3D", "3E", "3F",
        "40", "41", "42", "43", "44", "45", "46", "47", "48", "49", "4A", "4B", "4C", "4D", "4E", "4F",
        "50", "51", "52", "53", "54", "55", "56", "57", "58", "59", "5A", "5B", "5C", "5D", "5E", "5F",
        "60", "61", "62", "63", "64", "65", "66", "67", "68", "69", "6A", "6B", "6C", "6D", "6E", "6F",
        "70", "71", "72", "73", "74", "75", "76", "77", "78", "79", "7A", "7B", "7C", "7D", "7E", "7F",
        "80", "81", "82", "83", "84", "85", "86", "87", "88", "89", "8A", "8B", "8C", "8D", "8E", "8F",
        "90", "91", "92", "93", "94", "95", "96", "97", "98", "99", "9A", "9B", "9C", "9D", "9E", "9F",
        "A0", "A1", "A2", "A3", "A4", "A5", "A6", "A7", "A8", "A9", "AA", "AB", "AC", "AD", "AE", "AF",
        "B0", "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "B5", "B6", "B7", "B8", "B9", "BA", "BB", "BC", "BD", "BE", "BF",
        "C0", "C1", "C2", "C3", "C4", "C5", "C6", "C7", "C8", "C9", "CA", "CB", "CC", "CD", "CE", "CF",
        "D0", "D1", "D2", "D3", "D4", "D5", "D6", "D7", "D8", "D9", "DA", "DB", "DC", "DD", "DE", "DF",
        "E0", "E1", "E2", "E3", "E4", "E5", "E6", "E7", "E8", "E9", "EA", "EB", "EC", "ED", "EE", "EF",
        "F0", "F1", "F2", "F3", "F4", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F8", "F9", "FA", "FB", "FC", "FD", "FE", "FF",
    };
    StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder(bytes.Length * 2);
    foreach (byte b in bytes) {
        result.Append(hexStringTable[b]);
    }
    return result.ToString();
}

تحديث (2010-01-13)

تمت إضافة إجابة وليد للتحليل.سريع جدا.

تحديث (2011-10-05)

تمت الإضافة string.Concat Array.ConvertAll متغير للاكتمال (يتطلب .NET 4.0).على قدم المساواة مع string.Join إصدار.

تحديث (2012-02-05)

يتضمن اختبار الريبو المزيد من المتغيرات مثل StringBuilder.Append(b.ToString("X2")).لا شيء يزعج النتائج على الإطلاق. foreach أسرع من {IEnumerable}.Aggregate, ، على سبيل المثال، ولكن BitConverter لا يزال يفوز.

تحديث (2012-04-03)

تمت إضافة مايكروفت SoapHexBinary الإجابة على التحليل الذي احتل المركز الثالث.

تحديث (2013-01-15)

تمت إضافة إجابة معالجة البايت الخاصة بـ CodesInChaos، والتي احتلت المركز الأول (بهامش كبير على الكتل الكبيرة من النص).

تحديث (23/05/2013)

تمت إضافة إجابة بحث Nathan Moinvaziri والمتغير من مدونة Brian Lambert.كلاهما سريع إلى حد ما، ولكن لا يأخذان زمام المبادرة في جهاز الاختبار الذي استخدمته (AMD Phenom 9750).

تحديث (2014-07-31)

تمت إضافة إجابة البحث الجديدة المستندة إلى البايت لـ @CodesInChaos.ويبدو أنها أخذت زمام المبادرة في كل من اختبارات الجملة واختبارات النص الكامل.

تحديث (2015-08-20)

تمت الإضافة منفاخ الهواء التحسينات و unsafe البديل لهذا الريبو الإجابة.إذا كنت ترغب في اللعب في اللعبة غير الآمنة، فيمكنك الحصول على بعض مكاسب الأداء الضخمة مقارنة بأي من الفائزين الأوائل السابقين في كل من السلاسل القصيرة والنصوص الكبيرة.

هناك فئة تسمى SoapHexBinary هذا يفعل بالضبط ما تريد.

using System.Runtime.Remoting.Metadata.W3cXsd2001;

public static byte[] GetStringToBytes(string value)
{
    SoapHexBinary shb = SoapHexBinary.Parse(value);
    return shb.Value;
}

public static string GetBytesToString(byte[] value)
{
    SoapHexBinary shb = new SoapHexBinary(value);
    return shb.ToString();
}

عند كتابة تعليمات برمجية مشفرة، من الشائع تجنب الفروع المعتمدة على البيانات وعمليات البحث في الجداول للتأكد من أن وقت التشغيل لا يعتمد على البيانات، نظرًا لأن التوقيت المعتمد على البيانات يمكن أن يؤدي إلى هجمات القنوات الجانبية.

إنها أيضًا سريعة جدًا.

static string ByteToHexBitFiddle(byte[] bytes)
{
    char[] c = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    int b;
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++) {
        b = bytes[i] >> 4;
        c[i * 2] = (char)(55 + b + (((b-10)>>31)&-7));
        b = bytes[i] & 0xF;
        c[i * 2 + 1] = (char)(55 + b + (((b-10)>>31)&-7));
    }
    return new string(c);
}

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

وبعد أن تخلى عن كل آماله، قال من دخل هنا

شرح العبث الغريب:

  1. bytes[i] >> 4 يستخرج القضم العالي للبايت
    bytes[i] & 0xF يستخرج القضم المنخفض للبايت
  2. b - 10
    يكون < 0 للقيم b < 10, ، والذي سيصبح رقمًا عشريًا
    يكون >= 0 للقيم b > 10, ، والتي سوف تصبح رسالة من A ل F.
  3. استخدام i >> 31 على عدد صحيح 32 بت موقّع، يتم استخراج الإشارة، وذلك بفضل ملحق الإشارة.سيكون ذلك -1 ل i < 0 و 0 ل i >= 0.
  4. الجمع بين 2) و 3) يدل على ذلك (b-10)>>31 سوف يكون 0 للحروف و -1 للأرقام.
  5. وبالنظر إلى حالة الحروف، يصبح الجمع الأخير 0, ، و b يقع في نطاق 10 إلى 15.نريد رسم خريطة لها A(65) إلى F(70)، مما يعني إضافة 55 ('A'-10).
  6. بالنظر إلى حالة الأرقام، نريد تعديل الجمع الأخير بحيث يتم تعيينه b من النطاق 0 إلى 9 إلى النطاق 0(48) إلى 9(57).هذا يعني أنه يجب أن يصبح -7 ('0' - 55).
    الآن يمكننا أن نضرب فقط في 7.ولكن بما أن -1 يتم تمثيله بجميع البتات التي تكون 1، فيمكننا استخدامها بدلاً من ذلك & -7 منذ (0 & -7) == 0 و (-1 & -7) == -7.

بعض الاعتبارات الإضافية:

  • لم أستخدم متغير الحلقة الثانية للفهرسة فيه c, ، حيث أن القياس يدل على حسابه من i ارخص.
  • باستخدام بالضبط i < bytes.Length نظرًا لأن الحد العلوي للحلقة يسمح لـ JITter بإزالة عمليات التحقق من الحدود bytes[i], ، لذلك اخترت هذا البديل.
  • تحضير b يسمح int بإجراء تحويلات غير ضرورية من وإلى البايت.

إذا كنت تريد المزيد من المرونة من BitConverter، ولكن لا نريد تلك على غرار 1990s حلقات صريحة عالي الكعب، ثم يمكنك القيام به: 

String.Join(String.Empty, Array.ConvertAll(bytes, x => x.ToString("X2")));

وأو، إذا كنت تستخدم NET 4.0: 

String.Concat(Array.ConvertAll(bytes, x => x.ToString("X2")));

و(هذا الأخير من تعليق على آخر الأصلي).

وآخر جدول بحث النهج القائم. هذا واحد فقط يستخدم جدول البحث واحدة لكل بايت، بدلا من جدول بحث في عاب. 

private static readonly uint[] _lookup32 = CreateLookup32();

private static uint[] CreateLookup32()
{
    var result = new uint[256];
    for (int i = 0; i < 256; i++)
    {
        string s=i.ToString("X2");
        result[i] = ((uint)s[0]) + ((uint)s[1] << 16);
    }
    return result;
}

private static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookup32(byte[] bytes)
{
    var lookup32 = _lookup32;
    var result = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
    {
        var val = lookup32[bytes[i]];
        result[2*i] = (char)val;
        result[2*i + 1] = (char) (val >> 16);
    }
    return new string(result);
}

وأنا أيضا اختبار أنواع من هذه باستخدام ushort، struct{char X1, X2}، struct{byte X1, X2} في جدول البحث.

واعتمادا على الهدف تجميع (x86 و X64) تلك إما كان نفس ما يقرب من الأداء أو كانت أبطأ قليلا من هذا الخيار.

وللحصول على أداء أعلى من ذلك، unsafe شقيقتها: 

private static readonly uint[] _lookup32Unsafe = CreateLookup32Unsafe();
private static readonly uint* _lookup32UnsafeP = (uint*)GCHandle.Alloc(_lookup32Unsafe,GCHandleType.Pinned).AddrOfPinnedObject();

private static uint[] CreateLookup32Unsafe()
{
    var result = new uint[256];
    for (int i = 0; i < 256; i++)
    {
        string s=i.ToString("X2");
        if(BitConverter.IsLittleEndian)
            result[i] = ((uint)s[0]) + ((uint)s[1] << 16);
        else
            result[i] = ((uint)s[1]) + ((uint)s[0] << 16);
    }
    return result;
}

public static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookup32Unsafe(byte[] bytes)
{
    var lookupP = _lookup32UnsafeP;
    var result = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    fixed(byte* bytesP = bytes)
    fixed (char* resultP = result)
    {
        uint* resultP2 = (uint*)resultP;
        for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
        {
            resultP2[i] = lookupP[bytesP[i]];
        }
    }
    return new string(result);
}

وأو إذا كنت تنظر فيه مقبولا أن يكتب في سلسلة مباشرة: 

public static string ByteArrayToHexViaLookup32UnsafeDirect(byte[] bytes)
{
    var lookupP = _lookup32UnsafeP;
    var result = new string((char)0, bytes.Length * 2);
    fixed (byte* bytesP = bytes)
    fixed (char* resultP = result)
    {
        uint* resultP2 = (uint*)resultP;
        for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
        {
            resultP2[i] = lookupP[bytesP[i]];
        }
    }
    return result;
}

يمكنك استخدام طريقة BitConverter.ToString:

byte[] bytes = {0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256}
Console.WriteLine( BitConverter.ToString(bytes));

انتاج:

00-01-02-04-08-10-20-40-80-FF

معلومات اكثر: طريقة BitConverter.ToString (البايت[])

ولقد واجهت نفس المشكلة جدا اليوم، وجئت عبر هذا الرمز: 

private static string ByteArrayToHex(byte[] barray)
{
    char[] c = new char[barray.Length * 2];
    byte b;
    for (int i = 0; i < barray.Length; ++i)
    {
        b = ((byte)(barray[i] >> 4));
        c[i * 2] = (char)(b > 9 ? b + 0x37 : b + 0x30);
        b = ((byte)(barray[i] & 0xF));
        c[i * 2 + 1] = (char)(b > 9 ? b + 0x37 : b + 0x30);
    }
    return new string(c);
}

المصدر: منتديات آخر <م> <وأ href = "http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/csharpgeneral/thread/3928b8cb-3703-4672-8ccd-33718148d1e3/" يختلط = "نوفولو noreferrer"> [] بايت صفيف إلى عرافة سلسلة (انظر هذا المنصب PZahra). I تعديل رمز قليلا لإزالة بادئة 0X.

وفعلت بعض اختبار الأداء إلى رمز، وكان ما يقرب من ثماني مرات أسرع من استخدام BitConverter.ToString () (أسرع وفقا لآخر باتريدج).

يمكن أيضًا حل هذه المشكلة باستخدام جدول البحث.قد يتطلب ذلك قدرًا صغيرًا من الذاكرة الثابتة لكل من جهاز التشفير ووحدة فك التشفير.لكن هذه الطريقة ستكون سريعة:

  • الجدول التشفير 512 بايت أو 1024 بايت (ضعف الحجم إذا كانت هناك حاجة إلى العلوي والسفلي)
  • Decoder Table 256 Bytes أو 64 KIB (إما البحث عن char واحد أو بحث مزدوج char)

يستخدم الحل الخاص بي 1024 بايت لجدول التشفير، و256 بايت لفك التشفير.

فك التشفير

private static readonly byte[] LookupTable = new byte[] {
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, 0x09, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0x0C, 0x0D, 0x0E, 0x0F, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0x0C, 0x0D, 0x0E, 0x0F, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF
};

private static byte Lookup(char c)
{
  var b = LookupTable[c];
  if (b == 255)
    throw new IOException("Expected a hex character, got " + c);
  return b;
}

public static byte ToByte(char[] chars, int offset)
{
  return (byte)(Lookup(chars[offset]) << 4 | Lookup(chars[offset + 1]));
}

التشفير

private static readonly char[][] LookupTableUpper;
private static readonly char[][] LookupTableLower;

static Hex()
{
  LookupTableLower = new char[256][];
  LookupTableUpper = new char[256][];
  for (var i = 0; i < 256; i++)
  {
    LookupTableLower[i] = i.ToString("x2").ToCharArray();
    LookupTableUpper[i] = i.ToString("X2").ToCharArray();
  }
}

public static char[] ToCharLower(byte[] b, int bOffset)
{
  return LookupTableLower[b[bOffset]];
}

public static char[] ToCharUpper(byte[] b, int bOffset)
{
  return LookupTableUpper[b[bOffset]];
}

مقارنة

StringBuilderToStringFromBytes:   106148
BitConverterToStringFromBytes:     15783
ArrayConvertAllToStringFromBytes:  54290
ByteManipulationToCharArray:        8444
TableBasedToCharArray:              5651 *

* هذا الحل

ملحوظة

أثناء فك التشفير، يمكن أن يحدث IOException وIndexOutOfRangeException (إذا كان الحرف له قيمة عالية جدًا > 256).يجب تنفيذ طرق فك/تشفير التدفقات أو المصفوفات، وهذا مجرد إثبات للمفهوم.

This is an answer to revision 4 of Tomalak's highly popular answer (and subsequent edits).

I'll make the case that this edit is wrong, and explain why it could be reverted. Along the way, you might learn a thing or two about some internals, and see yet another example of what premature optimization really is and how it can bite you.

tl;dr: Just use Convert.ToByte and String.Substring if you're in a hurry ("Original code" below), it's the best combination if you don't want to re-implement Convert.ToByte. Use something more advanced (see other answers) that doesn't use Convert.ToByte if you need performance. Do not use anything else other than String.Substring in combination with Convert.ToByte, unless someone has something interesting to say about this in the comments of this answer.

warning: This answer may become obsolete if a Convert.ToByte(char[], Int32) overload is implemented in the framework. This is unlikely to happen soon.

As a general rule, I don't much like to say "don't optimize prematurely", because nobody knows when "premature" is. The only thing you must consider when deciding whether to optimize or not is: "Do I have the time and resources to investigate optimization approaches properly?". If you don't, then it's too soon, wait until your project is more mature or until you need the performance (if there is a real need, then you will make the time). In the meantime, do the simplest thing that could possibly work instead.

Original code:

    public static byte[] HexadecimalStringToByteArray_Original(string input)
    {
        var outputLength = input.Length / 2;
        var output = new byte[outputLength];
        for (var i = 0; i < outputLength; i++)
            output[i] = Convert.ToByte(input.Substring(i * 2, 2), 16);
        return output;
    }

Revision 4:

    public static byte[] HexadecimalStringToByteArray_Rev4(string input)
    {
        var outputLength = input.Length / 2;
        var output = new byte[outputLength];
        using (var sr = new StringReader(input))
        {
            for (var i = 0; i < outputLength; i++)
                output[i] = Convert.ToByte(new string(new char[2] { (char)sr.Read(), (char)sr.Read() }), 16);
        }
        return output;
    }

The revision avoids String.Substring and uses a StringReader instead. The given reason is:

Edit: you can improve performance for long strings by using a single pass parser, like so:

Well, looking at the reference code for String.Substring, it's clearly "single-pass" already; and why shouldn't it be? It operates at byte-level, not on surrogate pairs.

It does allocate a new string however, but then you need to allocate one to pass to Convert.ToByte anyway. Furthermore, the solution provided in the revision allocates yet another object on every iteration (the two-char array); you can safely put that allocation outside the loop and reuse the array to avoid that.

    public static byte[] HexadecimalStringToByteArray(string input)
    {
        var outputLength = input.Length / 2;
        var output = new byte[outputLength];
        var numeral = new char[2];
        using (var sr = new StringReader(input))
        {
            for (var i = 0; i < outputLength; i++)
            {
                numeral[0] = (char)sr.Read();
                numeral[1] = (char)sr.Read();
                output[i] = Convert.ToByte(new string(numeral), 16);
            }
        }
        return output;
    }

Each hexadecimal numeral represents a single octet using two digits (symbols).

But then, why call StringReader.Read twice? Just call its second overload and ask it to read two characters in the two-char array at once; and reduce the amount of calls by two.

    public static byte[] HexadecimalStringToByteArray(string input)
    {
        var outputLength = input.Length / 2;
        var output = new byte[outputLength];
        var numeral = new char[2];
        using (var sr = new StringReader(input))
        {
            for (var i = 0; i < outputLength; i++)
            {
                var read = sr.Read(numeral, 0, 2);
                Debug.Assert(read == 2);
                output[i] = Convert.ToByte(new string(numeral), 16);
            }
        }
        return output;
    }

What you're left with is a string reader whose only added "value" is a parallel index (internal _pos) which you could have declared yourself (as j for example), a redundant length variable (internal _length), and a redundant reference to the input string (internal _s). In other words, it's useless.

If you wonder how Read "reads", just look at the code, all it does is call String.CopyTo on the input string. The rest is just book-keeping overhead to maintain values we don't need.

So, remove the string reader already, and call CopyTo yourself; it's simpler, clearer, and more efficient.

    public static byte[] HexadecimalStringToByteArray(string input)
    {
        var outputLength = input.Length / 2;
        var output = new byte[outputLength];
        var numeral = new char[2];
        for (int i = 0, j = 0; i < outputLength; i++, j += 2)
        {
            input.CopyTo(j, numeral, 0, 2);
            output[i] = Convert.ToByte(new string(numeral), 16);
        }
        return output;
    }

Do you really need a j index that increments in steps of two parallel to i? Of course not, just multiply i by two (which the compiler should be able to optimize to an addition).

    public static byte[] HexadecimalStringToByteArray_BestEffort(string input)
    {
        var outputLength = input.Length / 2;
        var output = new byte[outputLength];
        var numeral = new char[2];
        for (int i = 0; i < outputLength; i++)
        {
            input.CopyTo(i * 2, numeral, 0, 2);
            output[i] = Convert.ToByte(new string(numeral), 16);
        }
        return output;
    }

What does the solution look like now? Exactly like it was at the beginning, only instead of using String.Substring to allocate the string and copy the data to it, you're using an intermediary array to which you copy the hexadecimal numerals to, then allocate the string yourself and copy the data again from the array and into the string (when you pass it in the string constructor). The second copy might be optimized-out if the string is already in the intern pool, but then String.Substring will also be able to avoid it in these cases.

In fact, if you look at String.Substring again, you see that it uses some low-level internal knowledge of how strings are constructed to allocate the string faster than you could normally do it, and it inlines the same code used by CopyTo directly in there to avoid the call overhead.

String.Substring

  • Worst-case: One fast allocation, one fast copy.
  • Best-case: No allocation, no copy.

Manual method

  • Worst-case: Two normal allocations, one normal copy, one fast copy.
  • Best-case: One normal allocation, one normal copy.

Conclusion? If you want to use Convert.ToByte(String, Int32) (because you don't want to re-implement that functionality yourself), there doesn't seem to be a way to beat String.Substring; all you do is run in circles, re-inventing the wheel (only with sub-optimal materials).

Note that using Convert.ToByte and String.Substring is a perfectly valid choice if you don't need extreme performance. Remember: only opt for an alternative if you have the time and resources to investigate how it works properly.

If there was a Convert.ToByte(char[], Int32), things would be different of course (it would be possible to do what I described above and completely avoid String).

I suspect that people who report better performance by "avoiding String.Substring" also avoid Convert.ToByte(String, Int32), which you should really be doing if you need the performance anyway. Look at the countless other answers to discover all the different approaches to do that.

Disclaimer: I haven't decompiled the latest version of the framework to verify that the reference source is up-to-date, I assume it is.

Now, it all sounds good and logical, hopefully even obvious if you've managed to get so far. But is it true?

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3720QM CPU @ 2.60GHz
    Cores: 8
    Current Clock Speed: 2600
    Max Clock Speed: 2600
--------------------
Parsing hexadecimal string into an array of bytes
--------------------
HexadecimalStringToByteArray_Original: 7,777.09 average ticks (over 10000 runs), 1.2X
HexadecimalStringToByteArray_BestEffort: 8,550.82 average ticks (over 10000 runs), 1.1X
HexadecimalStringToByteArray_Rev4: 9,218.03 average ticks (over 10000 runs), 1.0X

Yes!

Props to Partridge for the bench framework, it's easy to hack. The input used is the following SHA-1 hash repeated 5000 times to make a 100,000 bytes long string.

209113288F93A9AB8E474EA78D899AFDBB874355

Have fun! (But optimize with moderation.)

Complement to answer by @CodesInChaos (reversed method)

public static byte[] HexToByteUsingByteManipulation(string s)
{
    byte[] bytes = new byte[s.Length / 2];
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
    {
        int hi = s[i*2] - 65;
        hi = hi + 10 + ((hi >> 31) & 7);

        int lo = s[i*2 + 1] - 65;
        lo = lo + 10 + ((lo >> 31) & 7) & 0x0f;

        bytes[i] = (byte) (lo | hi << 4);
    }
    return bytes;
}

Explanation:

& 0x0f is to support also lower case letters

hi = hi + 10 + ((hi >> 31) & 7); is the same as:

hi = ch-65 + 10 + (((ch-65) >> 31) & 7);

For '0'..'9' it is the same as hi = ch - 65 + 10 + 7; which is hi = ch - 48 (this is because of 0xffffffff & 7).

For 'A'..'F' it is hi = ch - 65 + 10; (this is because of 0x00000000 & 7).

For 'a'..'f' we have to big numbers so we must subtract 32 from default version by making some bits 0 by using & 0x0f.

65 is code for 'A'

48 is code for '0'

7 is the number of letters between '9' and 'A' in the ASCII table (...456789:;<=>?@ABCD...).

This is a great post. I like Waleed's solution. I haven't run it through patridge's test but it seems to be quite fast. I also needed the reverse process, converting a hex string to a byte array, so I wrote it as a reversal of Waleed's solution. Not sure if it's any faster than Tomalak's original solution. Again, I did not run the reverse process through patridge's test either.

private byte[] HexStringToByteArray(string hexString)
{
    int hexStringLength = hexString.Length;
    byte[] b = new byte[hexStringLength / 2];
    for (int i = 0; i < hexStringLength; i += 2)
    {
        int topChar = (hexString[i] > 0x40 ? hexString[i] - 0x37 : hexString[i] - 0x30) << 4;
        int bottomChar = hexString[i + 1] > 0x40 ? hexString[i + 1] - 0x37 : hexString[i + 1] - 0x30;
        b[i / 2] = Convert.ToByte(topChar + bottomChar);
    }
    return b;
}

Why make it complex? This is simple in Visual Studio 2008:

C#:

string hex = BitConverter.ToString(YourByteArray).Replace("-", "");

VB:

Dim hex As String = BitConverter.ToString(YourByteArray).Replace("-", "")

Not to pile on to the many answers here, but I found a fairly optimal (~4.5x better than accepted), straightforward implementation of the hex string parser. First, output from my tests (the first batch is my implementation):

Give me that string:
04c63f7842740c77e545bb0b2ade90b384f119f6ab57b680b7aa575a2f40939f

Time to parse 100,000 times: 50.4192 ms
Result as base64: BMY/eEJ0DHflRbsLKt6Qs4TxGfarV7aAt6pXWi9Ak58=
BitConverter'd: 04-C6-3F-78-42-74-0C-77-E5-45-BB-0B-2A-DE-90-B3-84-F1-19-F6-AB-5
7-B6-80-B7-AA-57-5A-2F-40-93-9F

Accepted answer: (StringToByteArray)
Time to parse 100000 times: 233.1264ms
Result as base64: BMY/eEJ0DHflRbsLKt6Qs4TxGfarV7aAt6pXWi9Ak58=
BitConverter'd: 04-C6-3F-78-42-74-0C-77-E5-45-BB-0B-2A-DE-90-B3-84-F1-19-F6-AB-5
7-B6-80-B7-AA-57-5A-2F-40-93-9F

With Mono's implementation:
Time to parse 100000 times: 777.2544ms
Result as base64: BMY/eEJ0DHflRbsLKt6Qs4TxGfarV7aAt6pXWi9Ak58=
BitConverter'd: 04-C6-3F-78-42-74-0C-77-E5-45-BB-0B-2A-DE-90-B3-84-F1-19-F6-AB-5
7-B6-80-B7-AA-57-5A-2F-40-93-9F

With SoapHexBinary:
Time to parse 100000 times: 845.1456ms
Result as base64: BMY/eEJ0DHflRbsLKt6Qs4TxGfarV7aAt6pXWi9Ak58=
BitConverter'd: 04-C6-3F-78-42-74-0C-77-E5-45-BB-0B-2A-DE-90-B3-84-F1-19-F6-AB-5
7-B6-80-B7-AA-57-5A-2F-40-93-9F

The base64 and 'BitConverter'd' lines are there to test for correctness. Note that they are equal.

The implementation:

public static byte[] ToByteArrayFromHex(string hexString)
{
  if (hexString.Length % 2 != 0) throw new ArgumentException("String must have an even length");
  var array = new byte[hexString.Length / 2];
  for (int i = 0; i < hexString.Length; i += 2)
  {
    array[i/2] = ByteFromTwoChars(hexString[i], hexString[i + 1]);
  }
  return array;
}

private static byte ByteFromTwoChars(char p, char p_2)
{
  byte ret;
  if (p <= '9' && p >= '0')
  {
    ret = (byte) ((p - '0') << 4);
  }
  else if (p <= 'f' && p >= 'a')
  {
    ret = (byte) ((p - 'a' + 10) << 4);
  }
  else if (p <= 'F' && p >= 'A')
  {
    ret = (byte) ((p - 'A' + 10) << 4);
  } else throw new ArgumentException("Char is not a hex digit: " + p,"p");

  if (p_2 <= '9' && p_2 >= '0')
  {
    ret |= (byte) ((p_2 - '0'));
  }
  else if (p_2 <= 'f' && p_2 >= 'a')
  {
    ret |= (byte) ((p_2 - 'a' + 10));
  }
  else if (p_2 <= 'F' && p_2 >= 'A')
  {
    ret |= (byte) ((p_2 - 'A' + 10));
  } else throw new ArgumentException("Char is not a hex digit: " + p_2, "p_2");

  return ret;
}

I tried some stuff with unsafe and moving the (clearly redundant) character-to-nibble if sequence to another method, but this was the fastest it got.

(I concede that this answers half the question. I felt that the string->byte[] conversion was underrepresented, while the byte[]->string angle seems to be well covered. Thus, this answer.)

Safe versions:

public static class HexHelper
{
    [System.Diagnostics.Contracts.Pure]
    public static string ToHex(this byte[] value)
    {
        if (value == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("value");

        const string hexAlphabet = @"0123456789ABCDEF";

        var chars = new char[checked(value.Length * 2)];
        unchecked
        {
            for (int i = 0; i < value.Length; i++)
            {
                chars[i * 2] = hexAlphabet[value[i] >> 4];
                chars[i * 2 + 1] = hexAlphabet[value[i] & 0xF];
            }
        }
        return new string(chars);
    }

    [System.Diagnostics.Contracts.Pure]
    public static byte[] FromHex(this string value)
    {
        if (value == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
        if (value.Length % 2 != 0)
            throw new ArgumentException("Hexadecimal value length must be even.", "value");

        unchecked
        {
            byte[] result = new byte[value.Length / 2];
            for (int i = 0; i < result.Length; i++)
            {
                // 0(48) - 9(57) -> 0 - 9
                // A(65) - F(70) -> 10 - 15
                int b = value[i * 2]; // High 4 bits.
                int val = ((b - '0') + ((('9' - b) >> 31) & -7)) << 4;
                b = value[i * 2 + 1]; // Low 4 bits.
                val += (b - '0') + ((('9' - b) >> 31) & -7);
                result[i] = checked((byte)val);
            }
            return result;
        }
    }
}

Unsafe versions For those who prefer performance and do not afraid of unsafeness. About 35% faster ToHex and 10% faster FromHex.

public static class HexUnsafeHelper
{
    [System.Diagnostics.Contracts.Pure]
    public static unsafe string ToHex(this byte[] value)
    {
        if (value == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("value");

        const string alphabet = @"0123456789ABCDEF";

        string result = new string(' ', checked(value.Length * 2));
        fixed (char* alphabetPtr = alphabet)
        fixed (char* resultPtr = result)
        {
            char* ptr = resultPtr;
            unchecked
            {
                for (int i = 0; i < value.Length; i++)
                {
                    *ptr++ = *(alphabetPtr + (value[i] >> 4));
                    *ptr++ = *(alphabetPtr + (value[i] & 0xF));
                }
            }
        }
        return result;
    }

    [System.Diagnostics.Contracts.Pure]
    public static unsafe byte[] FromHex(this string value)
    {
        if (value == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("value");
        if (value.Length % 2 != 0)
            throw new ArgumentException("Hexadecimal value length must be even.", "value");

        unchecked
        {
            byte[] result = new byte[value.Length / 2];
            fixed (char* valuePtr = value)
            {
                char* valPtr = valuePtr;
                for (int i = 0; i < result.Length; i++)
                {
                    // 0(48) - 9(57) -> 0 - 9
                    // A(65) - F(70) -> 10 - 15
                    int b = *valPtr++; // High 4 bits.
                    int val = ((b - '0') + ((('9' - b) >> 31) & -7)) << 4;
                    b = *valPtr++; // Low 4 bits.
                    val += (b - '0') + ((('9' - b) >> 31) & -7);
                    result[i] = checked((byte)val);
                }
            }
            return result;
        }
    }
}

BTW For benchmark testing initializing alphabet every time convert function called is wrong, alphabet must be const (for string) or static readonly (for char[]). Then alphabet-based conversion of byte[] to string becomes as fast as byte manipulation versions.

And of course test must be compiled in Release (with optimization) and with debug option "Suppress JIT optimization" turned off (same for "Enable Just My Code" if code must be debuggable).

Inverse function for Waleed Eissa code (Hex String To Byte Array):

    public static byte[] HexToBytes(this string hexString)        
    {
        byte[] b = new byte[hexString.Length / 2];            
        char c;
        for (int i = 0; i < hexString.Length / 2; i++)
        {
            c = hexString[i * 2];
            b[i] = (byte)((c < 0x40 ? c - 0x30 : (c < 0x47 ? c - 0x37 : c - 0x57)) << 4);
            c = hexString[i * 2 + 1];
            b[i] += (byte)(c < 0x40 ? c - 0x30 : (c < 0x47 ? c - 0x37 : c - 0x57));
        }

        return b;
    }

Waleed Eissa function with lower case support:

    public static string BytesToHex(this byte[] barray, bool toLowerCase = true)
    {
        byte addByte = 0x37;
        if (toLowerCase) addByte = 0x57;
        char[] c = new char[barray.Length * 2];
        byte b;
        for (int i = 0; i < barray.Length; ++i)
        {
            b = ((byte)(barray[i] >> 4));
            c[i * 2] = (char)(b > 9 ? b + addByte : b + 0x30);
            b = ((byte)(barray[i] & 0xF));
            c[i * 2 + 1] = (char)(b > 9 ? b + addByte : b + 0x30);
        }

        return new string(c);
    }

Extension methods (disclaimer: completely untested code, BTW...):

public static class ByteExtensions
{
    public static string ToHexString(this byte[] ba)
    {
        StringBuilder hex = new StringBuilder(ba.Length * 2);

        foreach (byte b in ba)
        {
            hex.AppendFormat("{0:x2}", b);
        }
        return hex.ToString();
    }
}

etc.. Use either of Tomalak's three solutions (with the last one being an extension method on a string).

From Microsoft's developers, a nice, simple conversion:

public static string ByteArrayToString(byte[] ba) 
{
    // Concatenate the bytes into one long string
    return ba.Aggregate(new StringBuilder(32),
                            (sb, b) => sb.Append(b.ToString("X2"))
                            ).ToString();
}

While the above is clean an compact, performance junkies will scream about it using enumerators. You can get peak performance with an improved version of Tomolak's original answer:

public static string ByteArrayToString(byte[] ba)   
{   
   StringBuilder hex = new StringBuilder(ba.Length * 2);   

   for(int i=0; i < ga.Length; i++)       // <-- Use for loop is faster than foreach   
       hex.Append(ba[i].ToString("X2"));   // <-- ToString is faster than AppendFormat   

   return hex.ToString();   
}

This is the fastest of all the routines I've seen posted here so far. Don't just take my word for it... performance test each routine and inspect its CIL code for yourself.

In terms of speed, this seems to be better than anything here:

  public static string ToHexString(byte[] data) {
    byte b;
    int i, j, k;
    int l = data.Length;
    char[] r = new char[l * 2];
    for (i = 0, j = 0; i < l; ++i) {
      b = data[i];
      k = b >> 4;
      r[j++] = (char)(k > 9 ? k + 0x37 : k + 0x30);
      k = b & 15;
      r[j++] = (char)(k > 9 ? k + 0x37 : k + 0x30);
    }
    return new string(r);
  }

I did not get the code you suggested to work, Olipro. hex[i] + hex[i+1] apparently returned an int.

I did, however have some success by taking some hints from Waleeds code and hammering this together. It's ugly as hell but it seems to work and performs at 1/3 of the time compared to the others according to my tests (using patridges testing mechanism). Depending on input size. Switching around the ?:s to separate out 0-9 first would probably yield a slightly faster result since there are more numbers than letters.

public static byte[] StringToByteArray2(string hex)
{
    byte[] bytes = new byte[hex.Length/2];
    int bl = bytes.Length;
    for (int i = 0; i < bl; ++i)
    {
        bytes[i] = (byte)((hex[2 * i] > 'F' ? hex[2 * i] - 0x57 : hex[2 * i] > '9' ? hex[2 * i] - 0x37 : hex[2 * i] - 0x30) << 4);
        bytes[i] |= (byte)(hex[2 * i + 1] > 'F' ? hex[2 * i + 1] - 0x57 : hex[2 * i + 1] > '9' ? hex[2 * i + 1] - 0x37 : hex[2 * i + 1] - 0x30);
    }
    return bytes;
}

This version of ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation could be faster.

From my reports:

  • ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation3: 1,68 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 17,5X
  • ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation2: 1,73 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 16,9X
  • ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation: 2,90 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 10,1X
  • ByteArrayToHexViaLookupAndShift: 3,22 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 9,1X

  • ...

    static private readonly char[] hexAlphabet = new char[]
    {'0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','A','B','C','D','E','F'};
static string ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation3(byte[] bytes)
{
    char[] c = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
    byte b;
    for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++)
    {
        b = ((byte)(bytes[i] >> 4));
        c[i * 2] = hexAlphabet[b];
        b = ((byte)(bytes[i] & 0xF));
        c[i * 2 + 1] = hexAlphabet[b];
    }
    return new string(c);
}

And I think this one is an optimization:

    static private readonly char[] hexAlphabet = new char[]
        {'0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','A','B','C','D','E','F'};
    static string ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation4(byte[] bytes)
    {
        char[] c = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
        for (int i = 0, ptr = 0; i < bytes.Length; i++, ptr += 2)
        {
            byte b = bytes[i];
            c[ptr] = hexAlphabet[b >> 4];
            c[ptr + 1] = hexAlphabet[b & 0xF];
        }
        return new string(c);
    }

I'll enter this bit fiddling competition as I have an answer that also uses bit-fiddling to decode hexadecimals. Note that using character arrays may be even faster as calling StringBuilder methods will take time as well.

public static String ToHex (byte[] data)
{
    int dataLength = data.Length;
    // pre-create the stringbuilder using the length of the data * 2, precisely enough
    StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder (dataLength * 2);
    for (int i = 0; i < dataLength; i++) {
        int b = data [i];

        // check using calculation over bits to see if first tuple is a letter
        // isLetter is zero if it is a digit, 1 if it is a letter
        int isLetter = (b >> 7) & ((b >> 6) | (b >> 5)) & 1;

        // calculate the code using a multiplication to make up the difference between
        // a digit character and an alphanumerical character
        int code = '0' + ((b >> 4) & 0xF) + isLetter * ('A' - '9' - 1);
        // now append the result, after casting the code point to a character
        sb.Append ((Char)code);

        // do the same with the lower (less significant) tuple
        isLetter = (b >> 3) & ((b >> 2) | (b >> 1)) & 1;
        code = '0' + (b & 0xF) + isLetter * ('A' - '9' - 1);
        sb.Append ((Char)code);
    }
    return sb.ToString ();
}

public static byte[] FromHex (String hex)
{

    // pre-create the array
    int resultLength = hex.Length / 2;
    byte[] result = new byte[resultLength];
    // set validity = 0 (0 = valid, anything else is not valid)
    int validity = 0;
    int c, isLetter, value, validDigitStruct, validDigit, validLetterStruct, validLetter;
    for (int i = 0, hexOffset = 0; i < resultLength; i++, hexOffset += 2) {
        c = hex [hexOffset];

        // check using calculation over bits to see if first char is a letter
        // isLetter is zero if it is a digit, 1 if it is a letter (upper & lowercase)
        isLetter = (c >> 6) & 1;

        // calculate the tuple value using a multiplication to make up the difference between
        // a digit character and an alphanumerical character
        // minus 1 for the fact that the letters are not zero based
        value = ((c & 0xF) + isLetter * (-1 + 10)) << 4;

        // check validity of all the other bits
        validity |= c >> 7; // changed to >>, maybe not OK, use UInt?

        validDigitStruct = (c & 0x30) ^ 0x30;
        validDigit = ((c & 0x8) >> 3) * (c & 0x6);
        validity |= (isLetter ^ 1) * (validDigitStruct | validDigit);

        validLetterStruct = c & 0x18;
        validLetter = (((c - 1) & 0x4) >> 2) * ((c - 1) & 0x2);
        validity |= isLetter * (validLetterStruct | validLetter);

        // do the same with the lower (less significant) tuple
        c = hex [hexOffset + 1];
        isLetter = (c >> 6) & 1;
        value ^= (c & 0xF) + isLetter * (-1 + 10);
        result [i] = (byte)value;

        // check validity of all the other bits
        validity |= c >> 7; // changed to >>, maybe not OK, use UInt?

        validDigitStruct = (c & 0x30) ^ 0x30;
        validDigit = ((c & 0x8) >> 3) * (c & 0x6);
        validity |= (isLetter ^ 1) * (validDigitStruct | validDigit);

        validLetterStruct = c & 0x18;
        validLetter = (((c - 1) & 0x4) >> 2) * ((c - 1) & 0x2);
        validity |= isLetter * (validLetterStruct | validLetter);
    }

    if (validity != 0) {
        throw new ArgumentException ("Hexadecimal encoding incorrect for input " + hex);
    }

    return result;
}

Converted from Java code.

For performance I would go with drphrozens solution. A tiny optimization for the decoder could be to use a table for either char to get rid of the "<< 4".

Clearly the two method calls are costly. If some kind of check is made either on input or output data (could be CRC, checksum or whatever) the if (b == 255)... could be skipped and thereby also the method calls altogether.

Using offset++ and offset instead of offset and offset + 1 might give some theoretical benefit but I suspect the compiler handles this better than me.

private static readonly byte[] LookupTableLow = new byte[] {
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0x00, 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04, 0x05, 0x06, 0x07, 0x08, 0x09, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0x0C, 0x0D, 0x0E, 0x0F, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0x0A, 0x0B, 0x0C, 0x0D, 0x0E, 0x0F, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF
};

private static readonly byte[] LookupTableHigh = new byte[] {
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0x00, 0x10, 0x20, 0x30, 0x40, 0x50, 0x60, 0x70, 0x80, 0x90, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xA0, 0xB0, 0xC0, 0xD0, 0xE0, 0xF0, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xA0, 0xB0, 0xC0, 0xD0, 0xE0, 0xF0, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF,
  0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF, 0xFF
};

private static byte LookupLow(char c)
{
  var b = LookupTableLow[c];
  if (b == 255)
    throw new IOException("Expected a hex character, got " + c);
  return b;
}

private static byte LookupHigh(char c)
{
  var b = LookupTableHigh[c];
  if (b == 255)
    throw new IOException("Expected a hex character, got " + c);
  return b;
}

public static byte ToByte(char[] chars, int offset)
{
  return (byte)(LookupHigh(chars[offset++]) | LookupLow(chars[offset]));
}

This is just off the top of my head and has not been tested or benchmarked.

And for inserting into an SQL string (if you're not using command parameters):

public static String ByteArrayToSQLHexString(byte[] Source)
{
    return = "0x" + BitConverter.ToString(Source).Replace("-", "");
}

Yet another variation for diversity:

public static byte[] FromHexString(string src)
{
    if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(src))
        return null;

    int index = src.Length;
    int sz = index / 2;
    if (sz <= 0)
        return null;

    byte[] rc = new byte[sz];

    while (--sz >= 0)
    {
        char lo = src[--index];
        char hi = src[--index];

        rc[sz] = (byte)(
            (
                (hi >= '0' && hi <= '9') ? hi - '0' :
                (hi >= 'a' && hi <= 'f') ? hi - 'a' + 10 :
                (hi >= 'A' && hi <= 'F') ? hi - 'A' + 10 :
                0
            )
            << 4 | 
            (
                (lo >= '0' && lo <= '9') ? lo - '0' :
                (lo >= 'a' && lo <= 'f') ? lo - 'a' + 10 :
                (lo >= 'A' && lo <= 'F') ? lo - 'A' + 10 :
                0
            )
        );
    }

    return rc;          
}

Not optimized for speed, but more LINQy than most answers (.NET 4.0):

<Extension()>
Public Function FromHexToByteArray(hex As String) As Byte()
    hex = If(hex, String.Empty)
    If hex.Length Mod 2 = 1 Then hex = "0" & hex
    Return Enumerable.Range(0, hex.Length \ 2).Select(Function(i) Convert.ToByte(hex.Substring(i * 2, 2), 16)).ToArray
End Function

<Extension()>
Public Function ToHexString(bytes As IEnumerable(Of Byte)) As String
    Return String.Concat(bytes.Select(Function(b) b.ToString("X2")))
End Function

Two mashups which folds the two nibble operations into one.

Probably pretty efficient version:

public static string ByteArrayToString2(byte[] ba)
{
    char[] c = new char[ba.Length * 2];
    for( int i = 0; i < ba.Length * 2; ++i)
    {
        byte b = (byte)((ba[i>>1] >> 4*((i&1)^1)) & 0xF);
        c[i] = (char)(55 + b + (((b-10)>>31)&-7));
    }
    return new string( c );
}

Decadent linq-with-bit-hacking version:

public static string ByteArrayToString(byte[] ba)
{
    return string.Concat( ba.SelectMany( b => new int[] { b >> 4, b & 0xF }).Select( b => (char)(55 + b + (((b-10)>>31)&-7))) );
}

And reverse:

public static byte[] HexStringToByteArray( string s )
{
    byte[] ab = new byte[s.Length>>1];
    for( int i = 0; i < s.Length; i++ )
    {
        int b = s[i];
        b = (b - '0') + ((('9' - b)>>31)&-7);
        ab[i>>1] |= (byte)(b << 4*((i&1)^1));
    }
    return ab;
}

Another way is by using stackalloc to reduce GC memory pressure:

static string ByteToHexBitFiddle(byte[] bytes)
{
        var c = stackalloc char[bytes.Length * 2 + 1];
        int b; 
        for (int i = 0; i < bytes.Length; ++i)
        {
            b = bytes[i] >> 4;
            c[i * 2] = (char)(55 + b + (((b - 10) >> 31) & -7));
            b = bytes[i] & 0xF;
            c[i * 2 + 1] = (char)(55 + b + (((b - 10) >> 31) & -7));
        }
        c[bytes.Length * 2 ] = '\0';
        return new string(c);
}

Here's my shot at it. I've created a pair of extension classes to extend string and byte. On the large file test, the performance is comparable to Byte Manipulation 2.

The code below for ToHexString is an optimized implementation of the lookup and shift algorithm. It is almost identical to the one by Behrooz, but it turns out using a foreach to iterate and a counter is faster than an explicitly indexing for.

It comes in 2nd place behind Byte Manipulation 2 on my machine and is very readable code. The following test results are also of interest:

ToHexStringCharArrayWithCharArrayLookup: 41,589.69 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.5X ToHexStringCharArrayWithStringLookup: 50,764.06 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.2X ToHexStringStringBuilderWithCharArrayLookup: 62,812.87 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.0X

Based on the above results it seems safe to conclude that:

  1. The penalties for indexing into a string to perform the lookup vs. a char array are significant in the large file test.
  2. The penalties for using a StringBuilder of known capacity vs. a char array of known size to create the string are even more significant.

Here's the code:

using System;

namespace ConversionExtensions
{
    public static class ByteArrayExtensions
    {
        private readonly static char[] digits = new char[] { '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9', 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F' };

        public static string ToHexString(this byte[] bytes)
        {
            char[] hex = new char[bytes.Length * 2];
            int index = 0;

            foreach (byte b in bytes)
            {
                hex[index++] = digits[b >> 4];
                hex[index++] = digits[b & 0x0F];
            }

            return new string(hex);
        }
    }
}


using System;
using System.IO;

namespace ConversionExtensions
{
    public static class StringExtensions
    {
        public static byte[] ToBytes(this string hexString)
        {
            if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(hexString) && hexString.Length % 2 != 0)
            {
                throw new FormatException("Hexadecimal string must not be empty and must contain an even number of digits to be valid.");
            }

            hexString = hexString.ToUpperInvariant();
            byte[] data = new byte[hexString.Length / 2];

            for (int index = 0; index < hexString.Length; index += 2)
            {
                int highDigitValue = hexString[index] <= '9' ? hexString[index] - '0' : hexString[index] - 'A' + 10;
                int lowDigitValue = hexString[index + 1] <= '9' ? hexString[index + 1] - '0' : hexString[index + 1] - 'A' + 10;

                if (highDigitValue < 0 || lowDigitValue < 0 || highDigitValue > 15 || lowDigitValue > 15)
                {
                    throw new FormatException("An invalid digit was encountered. Valid hexadecimal digits are 0-9 and A-F.");
                }
                else
                {
                    byte value = (byte)((highDigitValue << 4) | (lowDigitValue & 0x0F));
                    data[index / 2] = value;
                }
            }

            return data;
        }
    }
}

Below are the test results that I got when I put my code in @patridge's testing project on my machine. I also added a test for converting to a byte array from hexadecimal. The test runs that exercised my code are ByteArrayToHexViaOptimizedLookupAndShift and HexToByteArrayViaByteManipulation. The HexToByteArrayViaConvertToByte was taken from XXXX. The HexToByteArrayViaSoapHexBinary is the one from @Mykroft's answer.

Intel Pentium III Xeon processor

    Cores: 4 <br/>
    Current Clock Speed: 1576 <br/>
    Max Clock Speed: 3092 <br/>

Converting array of bytes into hexadecimal string representation

ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation2: 39,366.64 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 22.4X

ByteArrayToHexViaOptimizedLookupAndShift: 41,588.64 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 21.2X

ByteArrayToHexViaLookup: 55,509.56 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 15.9X

ByteArrayToHexViaByteManipulation: 65,349.12 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 13.5X

ByteArrayToHexViaLookupAndShift: 86,926.87 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 10.2X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaBitConverter: 139,353.73 average ticks (over 1000 runs),6.3X

ByteArrayToHexViaSoapHexBinary: 314,598.77 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 2.8X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderForEachByteToString: 344,264.63 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 2.6X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderAggregateByteToString: 382,623.44 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 2.3X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderForEachAppendFormat: 818,111.95 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.1X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringConcatArrayConvertAll: 839,244.84 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.1X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringBuilderAggregateAppendFormat: 867,303.98 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.0X

ByteArrayToHexStringViaStringJoinArrayConvertAll: 882,710.28 average ticks (over 1000 runs), 1.0X

Another fast function...

private static readonly byte[] HexNibble = new byte[] {
    0x0, 0x1, 0x2, 0x3, 0x4, 0x5, 0x6, 0x7,
    0x8, 0x9, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0,
    0x0, 0xA, 0xB, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF, 0x0,
    0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0,
    0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0,
    0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0,
    0x0, 0xA, 0xB, 0xC, 0xD, 0xE, 0xF
};

public static byte[] HexStringToByteArray( string str )
{
    int byteCount = str.Length >> 1;
    byte[] result = new byte[byteCount + (str.Length & 1)];
    for( int i = 0; i < byteCount; i++ )
        result[i] = (byte) (HexNibble[str[i << 1] - 48] << 4 | HexNibble[str[(i << 1) + 1] - 48]);
    if( (str.Length & 1) != 0 )
        result[byteCount] = (byte) HexNibble[str[str.Length - 1] - 48];
    return result;
}
مرخصة بموجب: CC-BY-SA مع الإسناد
لا تنتمي إلى StackOverflow
scroll top