Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Heaps] benchmarks
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-07 18:09:18

> std::vector + std::push|pop_heap   2.35    3.36    2.71
> std::priority_queue<vector>        2.58    3.48    2.84

Hmm... I know that these aren't significantly different times, but
they should be much closer together since, AFAIK priority queue's
default implementation is a vector using push_heap/pop_heap. There
should be virtually no difference between the two (unless I'm
misreading something).

> I was unable to try the proposed d_ary_heap because I couldn't find a
> working syntax for the arity template parameter - any ideas anyone?

I think you're supposed to use d_ary_heap<T, arity<N>>. I filed a
defect about this a couple of days ago :)

> I was expecting the b_heap to be faster, but it is not; it is substantially
> slower.  What is going on there?  Does it all come down to size of data,
> cache size, etc?  Ideally, an "improved" implementation like this would be
> able to fall back to the naive implementation in cases where it does not
> function any better.  Or maybe I'm using it wrongly.

That's a good question. The data structure is supposed to to be
cache-friendly. What's the sizeof(work item)? It looks like it could
be "pretty big". Maybe large enough that it breaks the cache

> My understanding is that the fibonacci, binomial and other heaps only
> improve things when other operations e.g. merging are needed - is that
> correct?

That's also my understanding. Their node-based nature makes them less
performant, unless you're merging them.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at