[XABT] Replace SortedSet with HashSet.

[jpobst]

One question that came up with #9208 was "why SortedSet instead of HashSet"?

Indeed a HashSet seems to be 10ms - 15ms faster to construct than the SortedSet while taking the same ~1ms to perform the SetEquals operation.

[dellis1972]

Looks ok.

I do wonder if there is a faster way to do this. We just need to know if templateState and state have identical data.
Using the current code we loop throught the lists at least 4 times

2 to create the hashsets.
The two more when we do the comparisons (luckily we use the fast path in this case because they have the same item count and the same comparer).

I wonder if it would be better to generate a hash of each set and compare that, but the items would need to be processed in order for that to work.

[grendello]

Using a running hash or checksum might not be accurate enough, as the integer types we'd use for them have limited range. However, what I think might speed things up a little bit more is not using LINQ to populate the HashSet<> instances. LINQ (even in such simple instances like here) hides a lot of overhead, a for loop might be faster.

[jpobst]

For the dotnet new android case, which contains ~8500 JLO's due to Mono.Android.dll, the entire operation takes about 5 ms, so there isn't much more performance to squeeze here. 😉

If anything, we could probably omit this step for a Debug build. It is largely just ensuring that something that "can't happen" isn't happening. It's probably safe to skip this for Debug and only do it on Release builds. But that's a bigger change...

[grendello]

For the dotnet new android case, which contains ~8500 JLO's due to Mono.Android.dll, the entire operation takes about 5 ms, so there isn't much more performance to squeeze here. 😉

If anything, we could probably omit this step for a Debug build. It is largely just ensuring that something that "can't happen" isn't happening. It's probably safe to skip this for Debug and only do it on Release builds. But that's a bigger change...

Yeah, it's a good idea to omit it for Debug, the assemblies there should be identical.