Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-11 20:26:00
Please compare performance of your container to std containers with a good
> memory pooling allocator and include system settings with your benchmarks so
> that we know what you are measuring. Your benchmarks mean nothing to me
> because I don't know what allocator you are comparing to, but suspect you
> are comparing to the system allocator, which is clearly a straw man
I am directly comparing monotonic::allocator to std::allocator, so there is
I agree that eventually I'll have to compare against as many other possible
arrangements as possible, stopping when any of them fails to provide a
performance benefit for the proposed system.
The benchmarks I posted, while hardly exhaustive, do indeed show a
performance increase of 10-100x over the standard schemes. At least this was
a proof-of-concept over and above my hand-waving.
I showed this for both stack- and heap-based storage, for the same algorithm
implemented using the same containers, which no other changes or custom
I agree that more testing should be done, and I'll do so with a better
system analysis. I'll post more results and an updated library with full
constructor forwarding and alignment. It may well be that a more extensive
performance analysis shows that my proposed allocator is a wash.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk