Re: [Boost-users] How to improve property_tree performance

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] How to improve property_tree performance
From: Bo Jensen (jensen.bo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-15 04:31:16

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Bo Jensen <jensen.bo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Sebastian Redl
>> <sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 13.10.2010 10:15, Bo Jensen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I tried that, it was only slightly faster. I also tried to do a bunch
>>>> of independent trees and then merge them later, but still same speed.
>>>> Is it correct, that you can not choose the underlying storage method
>>>> or preallocate some space ? In my case I know exactly the sizes of
>>>> each tree and number of items.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because of the way PTree is structured at the high level (nesting trees
>>> where each branch can be treated as an independent tree), providing generic
>>> allocator support is impractical. Internally, a tree node consists of its
>>> local value and a node-based container of children, so preallocation through
>>> an interface would only be able to provide storage for that particular node,
>>> and would also require a special allocator.
>>> However, if you want to try the performance effect of using a stateless
>>> Boost Pool allocator, I believe all you have to do is add it to the
>>> base_container typedef in
>>> boost/property_tree/detail/ptree_implementation.hpp, near the top. See that
>>> big multi_index_container? That's the storage for child nodes. If you give
>>> it an alternative (stateless!) allocator, it will be used.
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Boost-users mailing list
>>> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
>>> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the input, I will try it out. Otherwise I might use the
>> serialization with xml, since my usage is so simple.
>
> You could just try using Spirit/Karma for that, there is about nothing
> faster then those for input/output streaming.  You will have to define
> your own format (xml is *easy* to emulate it in, see its examples,
> already done), but it would certainly be faster then any other method
> if you have a real need for speed.
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>

Thanks for the replies, I ended up using pugixml instead for the speed
crucial part.