Re: [boost] [review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-11 20:27:16

On 11/10/2017 18:39, Thorsten Ottosen via Boost wrote:

> I then plugged in boost::container's code for move-forwards and 
> move-backwards:
> 
> 32-bit, erase:
> 
> 10E3Â Â Â  3.39647 4.09578
> 10E4Â Â Â  2.85362 2.61519
> 10E5Â Â Â  11.4961 6.07559
> 10E6Â Â Â  80.8788 27.0292
> 10E7Â Â Â  913.022 272.85
> 
> 64-bit erase:
> 
> 10E3Â Â Â  2.47863 3.61393
> 10E4Â Â Â  1.75806 2.47981
> 10E5Â Â Â  4.77791 3.98943
> 10E6Â Â Â  30.6545 15.9707
> 10E7Â Â Â  361.743 160.078
> 
> 
> Is this awesome or what? :-)

Sure ;-) Differences are not very noticeable for small containers, 
numbers are better than expected for big containers. I can't deduce why, 
maybe the initial reserve and index modulo are adding noise to the 
benchmark. In any case, for flat_xxx family, devector would be a better 
choice than vector, maintaining contiguous storage, so we already have 
the use case where devector must shine ;-)

Best,

Ion