Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Final benchmark graphs for Colony vs std:: containers now available
From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-10 00:57:29

On 10 May 2016 at 02:01, Soul Studios <matt_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Actually tbb concurrent_vector doesn't allow erasures other than clear(),
> so it wouldn't be suitable for comparisons in the situations where you'd
> use a colony. Interesting structure though.

You're obviously right.

> can have mutexes on individual blocks rather than the whole thing.
> Also some reads and writes can occur at the same time.

Is there currently in your implementation a way to know to which block an
item belongs to (or to get the size of its block, which I guess comes down
to the same), i.e. to know which mutex should be considered. If not, could
that be a future feature?

> Yes, I noticed the MSVC deque performance results were weak, that's a
> pretty extraordinarily bad implementation! Wow.

I would think it's historical and hasn't been changed since the beginning
of M$-time to preserve binary-backward-compatibility (which from what I was
made to understand a change of chunk-size entails).

It's a shame actually that the chunk-size is not user-settable (as per the
standard from what I understand) for a std::deque or boost::deque, the
latter with a chunk size of 512b last time I looked. I always use the boost
one... maybe on Windows (with VC) you should test against the boost::deque
instead, in order to get some sensible data...

I see your implementation gives control over the first block on
construction (and the rest then follows the growth policy), NICE! I like it!


This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
signature to help him gain world domination!

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