Subject: Re: [boost] Final benchmark graphs for Colony vs std:: containers now available
From: Gonzalo BG (gonzalobg88_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-03 04:01:34
I think that too much information is missing from the benchmark setup which
makes the results hard to interpret (see below for some of my questions). A
good rule of thumb for how much information to include when describing the
setup of a benchmark is that anybody should, based solely on the
information provided, be able to re-implement the benchmarks and get the
same (or very similar) results.
> The first test measures time to insert N elements into a given container,
the second measures the time taken to erase 25% of those same elements from
the container, and the third test measures iteration performance after the
second test has taken place.
> Note: because plf::colony is an unordered container and subsequently we
are not concerned about insert order, push_front has been used with
std::list instead of push_back, in order to provide a fair performance
Are you using "push_back"/ "insert(end, N, T())" on vector and deque?
Reserving memory upfront? Is the final size greater than the capacity
before the insertion?
For example if the containers have initially zero size and capacity prior
to the insertion I cannot understand how anything can be faster than
"std::vector::vector(N, T())". If the initial capacity is larger than the
container size after the insertion I cannot understand how anything can be
faster than "std::vector::insert(end, N, T())". Both of these cases are
very relevant to the game development application you mention since there
one typically has an upper bound of the number of elements within a
container (like maximum number of entities).
The curve for vector and deque looks like O(N^2): are you using
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk