Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-11 20:27:16


On 11/10/2017 18:39, Thorsten Ottosen via Boost wrote:

> I then plugged in boost::container's code for move-forwards and
> move-backwards:
>
> 32-bit, erase:
>
> 10E3    3.39647 4.09578
> 10E4    2.85362 2.61519
> 10E5    11.4961 6.07559
> 10E6    80.8788 27.0292
> 10E7    913.022 272.85
>
> 64-bit erase:
>
> 10E3    2.47863 3.61393
> 10E4    1.75806 2.47981
> 10E5    4.77791 3.98943
> 10E6    30.6545 15.9707
> 10E7    361.743 160.078
>
>
> Is this awesome or what? :-)

Sure ;-) Differences are not very noticeable for small containers,
numbers are better than expected for big containers. I can't deduce why,
maybe the initial reserve and index modulo are adding noise to the
benchmark. In any case, for flat_xxx family, devector would be a better
choice than vector, maintaining contiguous storage, so we already have
the use case where devector must shine ;-)

Best,

Ion


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk