Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Indexed Set

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-27 15:34:35

Hi Joerg

----- Mensaje original -----
De: jhr.walter_at_[hidden] (Joerg Walter)
Fecha: Sábado, Marzo 27, 2004 6:44 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] Re: Formal Review: Indexed Set

> 
> OTOH it might be surprising to search for the components of one 
> library in
> different namespaces.

Yes, probably indexed_set should live in
boost::container::whatever with the rest of associated
components, and additionally, be lifted to boost
or boost::container.

> 
> Two more remarks:
> 
> 1. Documentation
> 
> My linux browser (konqueror) has difficulties to correctly display the
> indexed_set documentation. HTML tidy shows a couple of problems.

Please send them to me privately and I'll try
to fix them.

> 
> 2. Performance test
> 
> Compiling the performance tests with ICC 8.0 uncovered a problem in
> indexed_set.hpp:
> 
> 67,69c67,69
> <   template <typename,typename,typename,typename> friend class
> detail::index_base;
> <   template <typename,typename>                   friend class
> detail::header_holder;
> <   template <typename,typename>                   friend class
> detail::converter;
> ---
> >   template <typename,typename,typename> friend class  
> detail::index_base;>   template <typename,typename>          
> friend class
> detail::header_holder;
> >   template <typename,typename>          friend class  
> detail::converter;

There's an extra typename in the friend declaration
for index_base, right? I wonder how this splipped
through unnoticed for so long. I'll fix it, thanx for
the tip.

> Test results for GCC 3.3.2
> 
> 1 regular index
>  10^3 elmts: 141.24%
>  10^4 elmts: 147.67%
>  10^5 elmts: 152.57%
>  space gain: 100.00%
> 1 sequenced index
>  10^3 elmts: 154.99%
>  10^4 elmts: 157.43%
>  10^5 elmts: 153.71%
>  space gain: 100.00%
> 2 regular indices
>  10^3 elmts: 108.23%
>  10^4 elmts: 124.78%
>  10^5 elmts: 121.79%
>  space gain:  90.00%
> 1 regular index + 1 sequenced index
>  10^3 elmts: 123.96%
>  10^4 elmts: 137.12%
>  10^5 elmts: 145.98%
>  space gain:  87.50%
> 3 regular indices
>  10^3 elmts: 100.11%
>  10^4 elmts: 119.70%
>  10^5 elmts: 129.12%
>  space gain:  86.67%
> 2 regular indices + 1 sequenced index
>  10^3 elmts:  99.25%
>  10^4 elmts: 113.62%
>  10^5 elmts: 116.37%
>  space gain:  84.62%
> 
> Test results for ICC 8.0
> 
> 1 regular index
>  10^3 elmts: 105.45%
>  10^4 elmts: 106.74%
>  10^5 elmts: 105.98%
>  space gain: 100.00%
> 1 sequenced index
>  10^3 elmts: 112.29%
>  10^4 elmts: 112.20%
>  10^5 elmts: 111.43%
>  space gain: 100.00%
> 2 regular indices
>  10^3 elmts:  63.17%
>  10^4 elmts:  67.35%
>  10^5 elmts:  71.65%
>  space gain:  90.00%
> 1 regular index + 1 sequenced index
>  10^3 elmts:  65.19%
>  10^4 elmts:  69.00%
>  10^5 elmts:  72.62%
>  space gain:  87.50%
> 3 regular indices
>  10^3 elmts:  49.76%
>  10^4 elmts:  57.97%
>  10^5 elmts:  60.94%
>  space gain:  86.67%
> 2 regular indices + 1 sequenced index
>  10^3 elmts:  49.07%
>  10^4 elmts:  52.71%
>  10^5 elmts:  51.55%
>  space gain:  84.62%
> 
> I don't have an explanation for the difference.
> 

How have you compiled the performance test in GCC?
Maybe you forgot to turn on optimization flag -O3.
The library has a jamfile that builds all the
test, examples and the eprformance test, if you
use this the performance program should compile
in release mode. I except performance results
to be roughly the same as with GCC 3.3.1, which I
measured in my performance section.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo