The whole idea behind Parallel.ForEach()
is that you have a set of threads and each thread processes part of the collection. As you noticed, this doesn't work with async
-await
, where you want to release the thread for the duration of the async call.
You could “fix” that by blocking the ForEach()
threads, but that defeats the whole point of async
-await
.
What you could do is to use TPL Dataflow instead of Parallel.ForEach()
, which supports asynchronous Task
s well.
Specifically, your code could be written using a TransformBlock
that transforms each id into a Customer
using the async
lambda. This block can be configured to execute in parallel. You would link that block to an ActionBlock
that writes each Customer
to the console.
After you set up the block network, you can Post()
each id to the TransformBlock
.
In code:
var ids = new List<string> { "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "10" };
var getCustomerBlock = new TransformBlock<string, Customer>(
async i =>
{
ICustomerRepo repo = new CustomerRepo();
return await repo.GetCustomer(i);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = DataflowBlockOptions.Unbounded
});
var writeCustomerBlock = new ActionBlock<Customer>(c => Console.WriteLine(c.ID));
getCustomerBlock.LinkTo(
writeCustomerBlock, new DataflowLinkOptions
{
PropagateCompletion = true
});
foreach (var id in ids)
getCustomerBlock.Post(id);
getCustomerBlock.Complete();
writeCustomerBlock.Completion.Wait();
Although you probably want to limit the parallelism of the TransformBlock
to some small constant. Also, you could limit the capacity of the TransformBlock
and add the items to it asynchronously using SendAsync()
, for example if the collection is too big.
As an added benefit when compared to your code (if it worked) is that the writing will start as soon as a single item is finished, and not wait until all of the processing is finished.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…