Re: [Boost-users] BGL compared to LEDA

From: Doug Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-24 13:36:59

On Apr 24, 2006, at 10:59 AM, xiao-hui.wu_at_[hidden] wrote:

> Has anyone compared the performance of Boost Graph Library with LEDA?
>
> The following is a link I received that contains some comparisons.   
> I would
> like to know your experience since I am trying to decide which one  
> is more
> appropriate for my problems.
>
> http://www.quappa.com/leda-outperforms-boost.htm

That comparison is based on the max-flow algorithm, only, and the BGL  
implementation of that particular algorithm has not been optimized.  
We have done some tests in the past that show the BGL to provide  
better performance than LEDA in other cases (e.g., I'm looking at  
some charts that show the BGL running 6x faster than an old version  
of LEDA on connected components). Nobody can draw any defensible  
conclusions without a real study involving many different algorithms.  
We can't do that study without a LEDA license; they chose not to  
expand their max-flow study to other algorithms.

> I like the generic interface of BGL, although LEDA has a C#  
> counterpart
> called GOAL, which uses C# interfaces.  I am not sure if the  
> performance of
> GOAL matches LEDA, but it seems to provide some customization  
> capability.

There is a C# counterpart to the BGL called QuickGraph, but I don't  
know how far along it is. There are also Python bindings for the BGL,  
which wrap the C++ BGL. They provide "most" of the performance of the  
BGL and "most" of its customizability.

        Doug