Randomize a List<T>

Question

What is the best way to randomize the order of a generic list in C#? I've got a finite set of 75 numbers in a list I would like to assign a random order to, in order to draw them for a lottery type application.

Answer 1

Shuffle any (I)List with an extension method based on the Fisher-Yates shuffle:

private static Random rng = new Random();  

public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)  
{  
    int n = list.Count;  
    while (n > 1) {  
        n--;  
        int k = rng.Next(n + 1);  
        T value = list[k];  
        list[k] = list[n];  
        list[n] = value;  
    }  
}

Usage:

List<Product> products = GetProducts();
products.Shuffle();

The code above uses the much criticised System.Random method to select swap candidates. It's fast but not as random as it should be. If you need a better quality of randomness in your shuffles use the random number generator in System.Security.Cryptography like so:

using System.Security.Cryptography;
...
public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)
{
    RNGCryptoServiceProvider provider = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
    int n = list.Count;
    while (n > 1)
    {
        byte[] box = new byte[1];
        do provider.GetBytes(box);
        while (!(box[0] < n * (Byte.MaxValue / n)));
        int k = (box[0] % n);
        n--;
        T value = list[k];
        list[k] = list[n];
        list[n] = value;
    }
}

A simple comparison is available at this blog (WayBack Machine).

Edit: Since writing this answer a couple years back, many people have commented or written to me, to point out the big silly flaw in my comparison. They are of course right. There's nothing wrong with System.Random if it's used in the way it was intended. In my first example above, I instantiate the rng variable inside of the Shuffle method, which is asking for trouble if the method is going to be called repeatedly. Below is a fixed, full example based on a really useful comment received today from @weston here on SO.

Program.cs:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;

namespace SimpleLottery
{
  class Program
  {
    private static void Main(string[] args)
    {
      var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 75));
      numbers.Shuffle();
      Console.WriteLine("The winning numbers are: {0}", string.Join(",  ", numbers.GetRange(0, 5)));
    }
  }

  public static class ThreadSafeRandom
  {
      [ThreadStatic] private static Random Local;

      public static Random ThisThreadsRandom
      {
          get { return Local ?? (Local = new Random(unchecked(Environment.TickCount * 31 + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId))); }
      }
  }

  static class MyExtensions
  {
    public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)
    {
      int n = list.Count;
      while (n > 1)
      {
        n--;
        int k = ThreadSafeRandom.ThisThreadsRandom.Next(n + 1);
        T value = list[k];
        list[k] = list[n];
        list[n] = value;
      }
    }
  }
}

Answer 2

If we only need to shuffle items in a completely random order (just to mix the items in a list), I prefer this simple yet effective code that orders items by guid...

var shuffledcards = cards.OrderBy(a => Guid.NewGuid()).ToList();

Answer 3

I'm bit surprised by all the clunky versions of this simple algorithm here. Fisher-Yates (or Knuth shuffle) is bit tricky but very compact. If you go to Wikipedia, you would see a version of this algorithm that has for-loop in reverse and lot of people don't really seem to understand why is it in reverse. The key reason is that this version of algorithm assumes that the random number generator Random(n) at your disposal has following two properties:

1. It accepts n as single input parameter.
2. It returns number from 0 to n inclusive.

However .Net random number generator does not satisfy #2 property. The Random.Next(n) instead returns number from 0 to n-1 inclusive. If you try to use for-loop in reverse then you would need to call Random.Next(n+1) which adds one additional operation.

However, .Net random number generator has another nice function Random.Next(a,b) which returns a to b-1 inclusive. This actually perfectly fits nicely with implementation of this algorithm that has normal for-loop. So without further ado, here's the correct, efficient and compact implementation:

public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list, Random rnd)
{
    for(var i=0; i < list.Count - 1; i++)
        list.Swap(i, rnd.Next(i, list.Count));
}

public static void Swap<T>(this IList<T> list, int i, int j)
{
    var temp = list[i];
    list[i] = list[j];
    list[j] = temp;
}

Answer 4

Extension method for IEnumerable:

public static IEnumerable<T> Randomize<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
    Random rnd = new Random();
    return source.OrderBy<T, int>((item) => rnd.Next());
}

Answer 5

    public static List<T> Randomize<T>(List<T> list)
    {
        List<T> randomizedList = new List<T>();
        Random rnd = new Random();
        while (list.Count > 0)
        {
            int index = rnd.Next(0, list.Count); //pick a random item from the master list
            randomizedList.Add(list[index]); //place it at the end of the randomized list
            list.RemoveAt(index);
        }
        return randomizedList;
    }

Answer 6

EDIT The RemoveAt is a weakness in my previous version. This solution overcomes that.

public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(
        this IEnumerable<T> source,
        Random generator = null)
{
    if (generator == null)
    {
        generator = new Random();
    }

    var elements = source.ToArray();
    for (var i = elements.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
    {
        var swapIndex = generator.Next(i + 1);
        yield return elements[swapIndex];
        elements[swapIndex] = elements[i];
    }
}

Note the optional Random generator, if the base framework implementation of Random is not thread-safe or cryptographically strong enough for your needs, you can inject your implementation into the operation.

A suitable implementation for a thread-safe cryptographically strong Random implementation can be found in this answer.

---

Here's an idea, extend IList in a (hopefully) efficient way.

public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)
{
    var choices = Enumerable.Range(0, list.Count).ToList();
    var rng = new Random();
    for(int n = choices.Count; n > 1; n--)
    {
        int k = rng.Next(n);
        yield return list[choices[k]];
        choices.RemoveAt(k);
    }

    yield return list[choices[0]];
}

Answer 7

You can achieve that be using this simple extension method

public static class IEnumerableExtensions
{

    public static IEnumerable<t> Randomize<t>(this IEnumerable<t> target)
    {
        Random r = new Random();

        return target.OrderBy(x=>(r.Next()));
    }        
}

and you can use it by doing the following

// use this on any collection that implements IEnumerable!
// List, Array, HashSet, Collection, etc

List<string> myList = new List<string> { "hello", "random", "world", "foo", "bar", "bat", "baz" };

foreach (string s in myList.Randomize())
{
    Console.WriteLine(s);
}

Answer 8

Idea is get anonimous object with item and random order and then reorder items by this order and return value:

var result = items.Select(x => new { value = x, order = rnd.Next() })
            .OrderBy(x => x.order).Select(x => x.value).ToList()

Answer 9

If you have a fixed number (75), you could create an array with 75 elements, then enumerate your list, moving the elements to randomized positions in the array. You can generate the mapping of list number to array index using the Fisher-Yates shuffle.

Answer 10

I usually use:

var list = new List<T> ();
fillList (list);
var randomizedList = new List<T> ();
var rnd = new Random ();
while (list.Count != 0)
{
    var index = rnd.Next (0, list.Count);
    randomizedList.Add (list [index]);
    list.RemoveAt (index);
}

Answer 11

This is my preferred method of a shuffle when it's desirable to not modify the original. It's a variant of the Fisher–Yates "inside-out" algorithm that works on any enumerable sequence (the length of source does not need to be known from start).

public static IList<T> NextList<T>(this Random r, IEnumerable<T> source)
{
  var list = new List<T>();
  foreach (var item in source)
  {
    var i = r.Next(list.Count + 1);
    if (i == list.Count)
    {
      list.Add(item);
    }
    else
    {
      var temp = list[i];
      list[i] = item;
      list.Add(temp);
    }
  }
  return list;
}

This algorithm can also be implemented by allocating a range from 0 to length - 1 and randomly exhausting the indices by swapping the randomly chosen index with the last index until all indices have been chosen exactly once. This above code accomplishes the exact same thing but without the additional allocation. Which is pretty neat.

With regards to the Random class it's a general purpose number generator (and If I was running a lottery I'd consider using something different). It also relies on a time based seed value by default. A small alleviation of the problem is to seed the Random class with the RNGCryptoServiceProvider or you could use the RNGCryptoServiceProvider in a method similar to this (see below) to generate uniformly chosen random double floating point values but running a lottery pretty much requires understanding randomness and the nature of the randomness source.

var bytes = new byte[8];
_secureRng.GetBytes(bytes);
var v = BitConverter.ToUInt64(bytes, 0);
return (double)v / ((double)ulong.MaxValue + 1);

The point of generating a random double (between 0 and 1 exclusively) is to use to scale to an integer solution. If you need to pick something from a list based on a random double x that's always going to be 0 <= x && x < 1 is straight forward.

return list[(int)(x * list.Count)];

Enjoy!

Answer 12

If you don't mind using two Lists, then this is probably the easiest way to do it, but probably not the most efficient or unpredictable one:

List<int> xList = new List<int>() { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 };
List<int> deck = new List<int>();

foreach (int xInt in xList)
    deck.Insert(random.Next(0, deck.Count + 1), xInt);

Answer 13

 public Deck(IEnumerable<Card> initialCards) 
    {
    cards = new List<Card>(initialCards);
    public void Shuffle() 
     }
    {
        List<Card> NewCards = new List<Card>();
        while (cards.Count > 0) 
        {
            int CardToMove = random.Next(cards.Count);
            NewCards.Add(cards[CardToMove]);
            cards.RemoveAt(CardToMove);
        }
        cards = NewCards;
    }

public IEnumerable<string> GetCardNames() 

{
    string[] CardNames = new string[cards.Count];
    for (int i = 0; i < cards.Count; i++)
    CardNames[i] = cards[i].Name;
    return CardNames;
}

Deck deck1;
Deck deck2;
Random random = new Random();

public Form1() 
{

InitializeComponent();
ResetDeck(1);
ResetDeck(2);
RedrawDeck(1);
 RedrawDeck(2);

}



 private void ResetDeck(int deckNumber) 
    {
    if (deckNumber == 1) 
{
      int numberOfCards = random.Next(1, 11);
      deck1 = new Deck(new Card[] { });
      for (int i = 0; i < numberOfCards; i++)
           deck1.Add(new Card((Suits)random.Next(4),(Values)random.Next(1, 14)));
       deck1.Sort();
}


   else
    deck2 = new Deck();
 }

private void reset1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) {
ResetDeck(1);
RedrawDeck(1);

}

private void shuffle1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) 
{
    deck1.Shuffle();
    RedrawDeck(1);

}

private void moveToDeck1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) 
{

    if (listBox2.SelectedIndex >= 0)
    if (deck2.Count > 0) {
    deck1.Add(deck2.Deal(listBox2.SelectedIndex));

}

    RedrawDeck(1);
    RedrawDeck(2);

}

Answer 14

You can do it by sorting and the Comparison will be done by using random

var rand = new Random();
var list = new List<T>();
list.sort((a,b)=>rand.Next(-1,2));

Answer 15

Here's an efficient Shuffler that returns a byte array of shuffled values. It never shuffles more than is needed. It can be restarted from where it previously left off. My actual implementation (not shown) is a MEF component that allows a user specified replacement shuffler.

    public byte[] Shuffle(byte[] array, int start, int count)
    {
        int n = array.Length - start;
        byte[] shuffled = new byte[count];
        for(int i = 0; i < count; i++, start++)
        {
            int k = UniformRandomGenerator.Next(n--) + start;
            shuffled[i] = array[k];
            array[k] = array[start];
            array[start] = shuffled[i];
        }
        return shuffled;
    }

`

Answer 16

Here's a thread-safe way to do this:

public static class EnumerableExtension
{
    private static Random globalRng = new Random();

    [ThreadStatic]
    private static Random _rng;

    private static Random rng 
    {
        get
        {
            if (_rng == null)
            {
                int seed;
                lock (globalRng)
                {
                    seed = globalRng.Next();
                }
                _rng = new Random(seed);
             }
             return _rng;
         }
    }

    public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items)
    {
        return items.OrderBy (i => rng.Next());
    }
}

Answer 17

A simple modification of the accepted answer that returns a new list instead of working in-place, and accepts the more general IEnumerable<T> as many other Linq methods do.

private static Random rng = new Random();

/// <summary>
/// Returns a new list where the elements are randomly shuffled.
/// Based on the Fisher-Yates shuffle, which has O(n) complexity.
/// </summary>
public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IEnumerable<T> list) {
    var source = list.ToList();
    int n = source.Count;
    var shuffled = new List<T>(n);
    shuffled.AddRange(source);
    while (n > 1) {
        n--;
        int k = rng.Next(n + 1);
        T value = shuffled[k];
        shuffled[k] = shuffled[n];
        shuffled[n] = value;
    }
    return shuffled;
}

Answer 18

    List<T> OriginalList = new List<T>();
    List<T> TempList = new List<T>();
    Random random = new Random();
    int length = OriginalList.Count;
    int TempIndex = 0;

    while (length > 0) {
        TempIndex = random.Next(0, length);  // get random value between 0 and original length
        TempList.Add(OriginalList[TempIndex]); // add to temp list
        OriginalList.RemoveAt(TempIndex); // remove from original list
        length = OriginalList.Count;  // get new list <T> length.
    }

    OriginalList = new List<T>();
    OriginalList = TempList; // copy all items from temp list to original list.

Answer 19

Old post for sure, but I just use a GUID.

Items = Items.OrderBy(o => Guid.NewGuid().ToString()).ToList();

A GUID is always unique, and since it is regenerated every time the result changes each time.

Answer 20

A very simple approach to this kind of problem is to use a number of random element swap in the list.

In pseudo-code this would look like this:

do 
    r1 = randomPositionInList()
    r2 = randomPositionInList()
    swap elements at index r1 and index r2 
for a certain number of times