I\'m compiling a C++ library which defines a single function that randomly samples from a set of data points. The data points are stored in a std::vector
. There a
This question was completely answered by the great answer from osgx.
Maybe one additional aspect: push_back()
vs initialization list
When running the above test with 100000 push_backs, I get the following result with a gcc 4.4.6 on a Debian 6.0.6 system:
$ time g++ -std=c++0x -ftime-report ./pb100k.cc
Execution times (seconds)
garbage collection : 0.55 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.55 ( 1%) wall 0 kB ( 0%) ggc
...
reload : 33.95 (58%) usr 0.13 ( 6%) sys 34.14 (56%) wall 65723 kB ( 9%) ggc
thread pro- & epilogue: 0.66 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.66 ( 1%) wall 84 kB ( 0%) ggc
final : 1.82 ( 3%) usr 0.01 ( 0%) sys 1.81 ( 3%) wall 21 kB ( 0%) ggc
TOTAL : 58.65 2.13 60.92 737584 kB
real 1m2.804s
user 1m0.348s
sys 0m2.328s
When using an initialization list, it is much faster:
$ cat pbi100k.cc
#include
using namespace std;
int main()
{
vector d {
0.190987822870774,
/* 100000 lines with doubles generated with:
perl -e 'print(rand(10),",\n") for 1..100000'
*/
7.45608614801021};
return d.size();
}
$ time g++ -std=c++0x -ftime-report ./pbi100k.cc
Execution times (seconds)
callgraph construction: 0.02 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 1%) wall 25 kB ( 0%) ggc
preprocessing : 0.72 (59%) usr 0.06 (25%) sys 0.80 (54%) wall 8004 kB (12%) ggc
parser : 0.24 (20%) usr 0.12 (50%) sys 0.36 (24%) wall 43185 kB (65%) ggc
name lookup : 0.01 ( 1%) usr 0.05 (21%) sys 0.03 ( 2%) wall 1447 kB ( 2%) ggc
tree gimplify : 0.01 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 1%) wall 277 kB ( 0%) ggc
tree find ref. vars : 0.01 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 1%) wall 15 kB ( 0%) ggc
varconst : 0.19 (15%) usr 0.01 ( 4%) sys 0.20 (14%) wall 11288 kB (17%) ggc
integrated RA : 0.02 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.02 ( 1%) wall 74 kB ( 0%) ggc
reload : 0.01 ( 1%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.01 ( 1%) wall 61 kB ( 0%) ggc
TOTAL : 1.23 0.24 1.48 66378 kB
real 0m1.701s
user 0m1.416s
sys 0m0.276s
This is about 30+ times faster!