Re: [Performance of circular_buffer vs Queue][Multithreading may be broken]

From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-04-01 14:08:31

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 05:27, Jan Hafer via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Dear Boost developer,
> I found the circular buffer to be slower than std::queue for
>

These are different containers.

multithreading except in the case of a single thread (where it is
> notably faster).
>

std::queue is not synchronized.

I am using resize() to have the expected size filled as in vector.
>
> Is this behavior expected or documented anywhere?
> What kind of speedup is to be expected against the std::queue
> implementation?
> If there is none, then what is the purpose of circular buffer?
>

You could read the relevant docs. I strongly doubt that this boost
container is slower than anything in the STL when compared like for like.

I do also have broken code on a multithreaded application that worked
> fine before. I do pass the circular buffer as reference via functions
> from file scope, which in combination with the threads (initially
> starting elsewhere) somehow broke the code.
>
> Do you do regular benchmarks against other implementations? I dont see
> linked graphs on your homepage.
>
> Regards,
> Jan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

degski
-- 
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey