我认为下面的建议是最快的。为了能够使用数组，我牺牲了源Enumerable的惰性。复制和提前知道每个子列表的长度。

public static IEnumerable<T[]> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int size)
{
    T[] array = items as T[] ?? items.ToArray();
    for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i+=size)
    {
        T[] chunk = new T[Math.Min(size, array.Length - i)];
        Array.Copy(array, i, chunk, 0, chunk.Length);
        yield return chunk;
    }
}

好吧，以下是我的看法:

完全懒惰:工作在无限枚举上 没有中间复制/缓冲 O(n)执行时间 当内部序列仅被部分消耗时也适用

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunks<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, int chunkSize) { if (chunkSize < 1) throw new ArgumentException("chunkSize must be positive"); using (var e = enumerable.GetEnumerator()) while (e.MoveNext()) { var remaining = chunkSize; // elements remaining in the current chunk var innerMoveNext = new Func<bool>(() => --remaining > 0 && e.MoveNext()); yield return e.GetChunk(innerMoveNext); while (innerMoveNext()) {/* discard elements skipped by inner iterator */} } } private static IEnumerable<T> GetChunk<T>(this IEnumerator<T> e, Func<bool> innerMoveNext) { do yield return e.Current; while (innerMoveNext()); } Example Usage var src = new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}; var c3 = src.Chunks(3); // {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}}; var c4 = src.Chunks(4); // {{1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6}}; var sum = c3.Select(c => c.Sum()); // {6, 15} var count = c3.Count(); // 2 var take2 = c3.Select(c => c.Take(2)); // {{1, 2}, {4, 5}} Explanations The code works by nesting two yield based iterators. The outer iterator must keep track of how many elements have been effectively consumed by the inner (chunk) iterator. This is done by closing over remaining with innerMoveNext(). Unconsumed elements of a chunk are discarded before the next chunk is yielded by the outer iterator. This is necessary because otherwise you get inconsistent results, when the inner enumerables are not (completely) consumed (e.g. c3.Count() would return 6). Note: The answer has been updated to address the shortcomings pointed out by @aolszowka.

使用模块化分区:

public IEnumerable<IEnumerable<string>> Split(IEnumerable<string> input, int chunkSize)
{
    var chunks = (int)Math.Ceiling((double)input.Count() / (double)chunkSize);
    return Enumerable.Range(0, chunks).Select(id => input.Where(s => s.GetHashCode() % chunks == id));
}

我发现这个小片段做得很好。

public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Chunked<T>(this List<T> source, int chunkSize)
{
    var offset = 0;

    while (offset < source.Count)
    {
        yield return source.GetRange(offset, Math.Min(source.Count - offset, chunkSize));
        offset += chunkSize;
    }
}

这个怎么样?

var input = new List<string> { "a", "g", "e", "w", "p", "s", "q", "f", "x", "y", "i", "m", "c" };
var k = 3

var res = Enumerable.Range(0, (input.Count - 1) / k + 1)
                    .Select(i => input.GetRange(i * k, Math.Min(k, input.Count - i * k)))
                    .ToList();

据我所知，GetRange()与所获取的项目数量是线性的。所以这应该表现得很好。

更新。net 6.0

. net 6.0为系统添加了一个新的原生Chunk方法。Linq命名空间:

public static System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<TSource[]> Chunk<TSource> (
   this System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<TSource> source, int size);

使用这种新方法，除了最后一个块外，每个块都是大小相同的。最后一个块将包含剩余的元素，大小可能较小。

这里有一个例子:

var list = Enumerable.Range(1, 100);
var chunkSize = 10;

foreach(var chunk in list.Chunk(chunkSize)) //Returns a chunk with the correct size. 
{
    Parallel.ForEach(chunk, (item) =>
    {
        //Do something Parallel here. 
        Console.WriteLine(item);
    });
}

你可能会想，为什么不使用Skip and Take呢?这是真的，我认为这更简洁，让事情更有可读性。