1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0.1 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>Boost.MultiIndex Documentation - Performance</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css" type="text/css">
<link rel="start" href="index.html">
<link rel="prev" href="compiler_specifics.html">
<link rel="up" href="index.html">
<link rel="next" href="examples.html">
</head>
<body>
<h1><img src="../../../boost.png" alt="boost.png (6897 bytes)" align=
"middle" width="277" height="86">Boost.MultiIndex Performance</h1>
<div class="prev_link"><a href="compiler_specifics.html"><img src="prev.gif" alt="compiler specifics" border="0"><br>
Compiler specifics
</a></div>
<div class="up_link"><a href="index.html"><img src="up.gif" alt="index" border="0"><br>
Index
</a></div>
<div class="next_link"><a href="examples.html"><img src="next.gif" alt="examples" border="0"><br>
Examples
</a></div><br clear="all" style="clear: all;">
<hr>
<h2>Contents</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#intro">Introduction</a></li>
<li><a href="#simulation">Manual simulation of a <code>multi_index_container</code></a></li>
<li><a href="#spatial_efficiency">Spatial efficiency</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_efficiency">Time efficiency</a></li>
<li><a href="#tests">Performance tests</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#test_1r">Results for 1 ordered index</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#memory_1r">Memory consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_1r">Execution time</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#test_1s">Results for 1 sequenced index</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#memory_1s">Memory consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_1s">Execution time</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#test_2r">Results for 2 ordered indices</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#memory_2r">Memory consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_2r">Execution time</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#test_1r1s">Results for 1 ordered index + 1 sequenced index</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#memory_1r1s">Memory consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_1r1s">Execution time</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#test_3r">Results for 3 ordered indices</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#memory_3r">Memory consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_3r">Execution time</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#test_2r1s">Results for 2 ordered indices + 1 sequenced index</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#memory_2r1s">Memory consumption</a></li>
<li><a href="#time_2r1s">Execution time</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#conclusions">Conclusions</a></li>
</ul>
<h2><a name="intro">Introduction</a></h2>
<p>
Boost.MultiIndex helps the programmer to avoid the manual construction of cumbersome
compositions of containers when multi-indexing capabilities are needed. Furthermore,
it does so in an efficient manner, both in terms of space and time consumption. The
space savings stem from the compact representation of the underlying data structures,
requiring a single node per element. As for time efficiency, Boost.MultiIndex
intensively uses metaprogramming techniques producing very tight implementations
of member functions which take care of the elementary operations for each index:
for <code>multi_index_container</code>s with two or more indices, the running time
can be reduced to half as long as with manual simulations involving several
STL containers.
</p>
<h2><a name="simulation">Manual simulation of a <code>multi_index_container</code></a></h2>
<p>
The section on <a href="tutorial/techniques.html#emulate_std_containers">emulation
of standard containers with <code>multi_index_container</code></a> shows the equivalence
between single-index <code>multi_index_container</code>s and some STL containers. Let us now
concentrate on the problem of simulating a <code>multi_index_container</code> with two
or more indices with a suitable combination of standard containers.
</p>
<p>
Consider the following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code>:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=keyword>typedef</span> <span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_non_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>>,</span> <span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>greater</span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span> <span class=identifier>indexed_t</span><span class=special>;</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
<code>indexed_t</code> maintains two internal indices on elements of type
<code>int</code>. In order to simulate this data structure resorting only to
standard STL containers, one can use on a first approach the following types:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=comment>// dereferencing compare predicate</span>
<span class=keyword>template</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>typename</span> <span class=identifier>Iterator</span><span class=special>,</span><span class=keyword>typename</span> <span class=identifier>Compare</span><span class=special>></span>
<span class=keyword>struct</span> <span class=identifier>it_compare</span>
<span class=special>{</span>
<span class=keyword>bool</span> <span class=keyword>operator</span><span class=special>()(</span><span class=keyword>const</span> <span class=identifier>Iterator</span><span class=special>&</span> <span class=identifier>x</span><span class=special>,</span><span class=keyword>const</span> <span class=identifier>Iterator</span><span class=special>&</span> <span class=identifier>y</span><span class=special>)</span><span class=keyword>const</span>
<span class=special>{</span>
<span class=keyword>return</span> <span class=identifier>comp</span><span class=special>(*</span><span class=identifier>x</span><span class=special>,*</span><span class=identifier>y</span><span class=special>);</span>
<span class=special>}</span>
<span class=keyword>private</span><span class=special>:</span>
<span class=identifier>Compare</span> <span class=identifier>comp</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=special>};</span>
<span class=keyword>typedef</span> <span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>set</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=identifier>manual_t1</span><span class=special>;</span> <span class=comment>// equivalent to indexed_t's index #0</span>
<span class=keyword>typedef</span> <span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>multiset</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>const</span> <span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>*,</span>
<span class=identifier>it_compare</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>const</span> <span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>*,</span>
<span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>greater</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span> <span class=identifier>manual_t2</span><span class=special>;</span> <span class=comment>// equivalent to indexed_t's index #1</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
where <code>manual_t1</code> is the "base" container that holds
the actual elements, and <code>manual_t2</code> stores pointers to
elements of <code>manual_t1</code>. This scheme turns out to be quite
inefficient, though: while insertion into the data structure is simple enough:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>manual_t1</span> <span class=identifier>c1</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t2</span> <span class=identifier>c2</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=comment>// insert the element 5</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t1</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span> <span class=identifier>it1</span><span class=special>=</span><span class=identifier>c1</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>insert</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=number>5</span><span class=special>).</span><span class=identifier>first</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=identifier>c2</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>insert</span><span class=special>(&*</span><span class=identifier>it1</span><span class=special>);</span>
</pre></blockquote>
deletion, on the other hand, necessitates a logarithmic search, whereas
<code>indexed_t</code> deletes in constant time:
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=comment>// remove the element pointed to by it2</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t2</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span> <span class=identifier>it2</span><span class=special>=...;</span>
<span class=identifier>c1</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>erase</span><span class=special>(**</span><span class=identifier>it2</span><span class=special>);</span> <span class=comment>// watch out! performs in logarithmic time</span>
<span class=identifier>c2</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>erase</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=identifier>it2</span><span class=special>);</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The right approach consists of feeding the second container not with
raw pointers, but with elements of type <code>manual_t1::iterator</code>:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=keyword>typedef</span> <span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>set</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=identifier>manual_t1</span><span class=special>;</span> <span class=comment>// equivalent to indexed_t's index #0</span>
<span class=keyword>typedef</span> <span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>multiset</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t1</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>it_compare</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t1</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>std</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>greater</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span> <span class=identifier>manual_t2</span><span class=special>;</span> <span class=comment>// equivalent to indexed_t's index #1</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
Now, insertion and deletion can be performed with complexity bounds
equivalent to those of <code>indexed_t</code>:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>manual_t1</span> <span class=identifier>c1</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t2</span> <span class=identifier>c2</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=comment>// insert the element 5</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t1</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span> <span class=identifier>it1</span><span class=special>=</span><span class=identifier>c1</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>insert</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=number>5</span><span class=special>).</span><span class=identifier>first</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=identifier>c2</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>insert</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=identifier>it1</span><span class=special>);</span>
<span class=comment>// remove the element pointed to by it2</span>
<span class=identifier>manual_t2</span><span class=special>::</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span> <span class=identifier>it2</span><span class=special>=...;</span>
<span class=identifier>c1</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>erase</span><span class=special>(*</span><span class=identifier>it2</span><span class=special>);</span> <span class=comment>// OK: constant time</span>
<span class=identifier>c2</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>erase</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=identifier>it2</span><span class=special>);</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
The construction can be extended in a straightworward manner to
handle more than two indices. In what follows, we will compare
instantiations of <code>multi_index_container</code> against this sort of
manual simulations.
</p>
<h2><a name="spatial_efficiency">Spatial efficiency</a></h2>
<p>
The gain in space consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with
respect to its manual simulations is amenable to a very simple
theoretical analysis. For simplicity, we will ignore alignment
issues (which in general play in favor of <code>multi_index_container</code>.)
</p>
<p>
Nodes of a <code>multi_index_container</code> with <i>N</i> indices hold the value
of the element plus <i>N</i> headers containing linking information for
each index. Thus the node size is
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> = <i>e</i> + <i>h</i><sub>0</sub> + +
<i>h</i><sub><i>N</i>-1</sub>, where<br>
<i>e</i> = size of the element,<br>
<i>h</i><sub><i>i</i></sub> = size of the <i>i</i>-th header.
</blockquote>
<p>
On the other hand, the manual simulation allocates <i>N</i> nodes per
element, the first holding the elements themselves and the rest
storing iterators to the "base" container. In practice, an iterator
merely holds a raw pointer to the node it is associated to, so its size
is independent of the type of the elements. Summing all contributions,
the space allocated per element in a manual simulation is
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>S<sub>M</sub></i> = (<i>e</i> + <i>h</i><sub>0</sub>) +
(<i>p</i> + <i>h</i><sub>1</sub>) + +
(<i>p</i> + <i>h</i><sub><i>N</i>-1</sub>) =
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> + (<i>N</i>-1)<i>p</i>, where<br>
<i>p</i> = size of a pointer.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>
The relative amount of memory taken up by <code>multi_index_container</code>
with respect to its manual simulation is just
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> / <i>S<sub>M</sub></i>, which can be expressed
then as:
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> / <i>S<sub>M</sub></i> =
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> / (<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> + (<i>N</i>-1)<i>p</i>).
</blockquote>
<p>
The formula shows that <code>multi_index_container</code> is more efficient
with regard to memory consumption as the number of indices grow. An implicit
assumption has been made that headers of <code>multi_index_container</code>
index nodes are the same size that their analogues in STL containers; but there
is a particular case in which this is often not the case: ordered indices use a
<a href="tutorial/indices.html#ordered_node_compression">spatial optimization
technique</a> which is not present in many implementations of
<code>std::set</code>, giving an additional advantage to
<code>multi_index_container</code>s of one system word per ordered index.
Taking this fact into account, the former formula can be adjusted to:
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> / <i>S<sub>M</sub></i> =
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> / (<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> + (<i>N</i>-1)<i>p</i> + <i>Ow</i>),
</blockquote>
<p>
where <i>O</i> is the number of ordered indices of the container, and <i>w</i>
is the system word size (typically 4 bytes on 32-bit architectures.)
</p>
<p>
These considerations have overlooked an aspect of the greatest practical
importance: the fact that <code>multi_index_container</code> allocates a single
node per element, compared to the many nodes of different sizes
built by manual simulations, diminishes memory fragmentation, which
can show up in more usable memory available and better performance.
</p>
<h2><a name="time_efficiency">Time efficiency</a></h2>
<p>
From the point of view of computational complexity (i.e. big-O
characterization), <code>multi_index_container</code> and its corresponding manual
simulations are equivalent: inserting an element into
a <code>multi_index_container</code> reduces to a simple combination of
elementary insertion operations on each of the indices, and
similarly for deletion. Hence, the most we can expect is a reduction
(or increase) of execution time by a roughly constant factor. As we
will see later, the reduction can be very significative for
<code>multi_index_container</code>s with two or more indices.
</p>
<p>In the special case of <code>multi_index_container</code>s with only one index,
resulting performance will roughly match that of the STL equivalent containers:
tests show that there is at most a negligible degradation with respect to STL,
and even in some cases a small improvement.
</p>
<h2><a name="tests">Performance tests</a></h2>
<p>
See <a href="../perf/test_perf.cpp">source code</a> used for measurements.
<p>
In order to assess the efficiency of <code>multi_index_container</code>, the following
basic algorithm
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><...></span> <span class=identifier>c</span><span class=special>;</span>
<span class=keyword>for</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=keyword>int</span> <span class=identifier>i</span><span class=special>=</span><span class=number>0</span><span class=special>;</span><span class=identifier>i</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>n</span><span class=special>;++</span><span class=identifier>i</span><span class=special>)</span><span class=identifier>c</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>insert</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=identifier>i</span><span class=special>);</span>
<span class=keyword>for</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=identifier>iterator</span> <span class=identifier>it</span><span class=special>=</span><span class=identifier>c</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>begin</span><span class=special>();</span><span class=identifier>it</span><span class=special>!=</span><span class=identifier>c</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>end</span><span class=special>();)</span><span class=identifier>c</span><span class=special>.</span><span class=identifier>erase</span><span class=special>(</span><span class=identifier>it</span><span class=special>++);</span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
has been measured for different instantiations of <code>multi_index_container</code>
at values of <i>n</i> 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000,
and its execution time compared with that of the equivalent algorithm
for the corresponding manual simulation of the data structure based on
STL containers. The table below describes the test environments used.
</p>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<caption><b>Tests environments.</b></caption>
<tr>
<th>Compiler</th>
<th>Settings</th>
<th>OS and CPU</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>GCC 3.4.5 (mingw special)</td>
<td><code>-O3</code></td>
<td>Windows 2000 Pro on P4 1.5 GHz, 256 MB RAM</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd_tr">
<td>Intel C++ 7.1</td>
<td>default release settings</td>
<td>Windows 2000 Pro on P4 1.5 GHz, 256 MB RAM</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Microsoft Visual C++ 8.0</td>
<td>default release settings, <code>_SECURE_SCL=0</code></td>
<td>Windows XP on P4 Xeon 3.2 GHz, 1 GB RAM</td>
</tr>
</table>
</p>
<p>
The relative memory consumption (i.e. the amount of memory allocated
by a <code>multi_index_container</code> with respect to its manual simulation)
is determined by dividing the size of a <code>multi_index_container</code> node
by the sum of node sizes of all the containers integrating the
simulating data structure.
</p>
<h3><a name="test_1r">Results for 1 ordered index</a></h3>
<p>
The following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code> was tested:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
which is functionally equivalent to <code>std::set<int></code>.
</p>
<h4><a name="memory_1r">Memory consumption</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th width="33%">GCC 3.4.5</th>
<th width="33%">ICC 7.1</th>
<th width="33%">MSVC 8.0</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">80%</td>
<td align="center">80%</td>
<td align="center">80%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<b>Table 1: Relative memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 1
ordered index.</b>
</p>
<p>
The reduction in memory usage is accounted for by the optimization technique implemented
in Boost.MultiIndex ordered indices, as <a href="#spatial_efficiency">explained above</a>.
</p>
<h4><a name="time_1r">Execution time</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<img src="perf_1o.png" alt="performance of multi_index_container with 1 ordered index"
width="556" height="372"><br>
<b>Fig. 1: Performance of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 1 ordered index.</b>
</p>
<p>
Somewhat surprisingly, <code>multi_index_container</code> performs slightly
better than <code>std::set</code>. A very likely explanation for this behavior
is that the lower memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code>
results in a higher processor cache hit rate.
The improvement is smallest for GCC, presumably because the worse quality of
this compiler's optimizer masks the cache-related benefits.
</p>
<h3><a name="test_1s">Results for 1 sequenced index</a></h3>
<p>
The following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code> was tested:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>sequenced</span><span class=special><></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
</pre></blockquote>
<p>
which is functionally equivalent to <code>std::list<int></code>.
</p>
<h4><a name="memory_1s">Memory consumption</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th width="33%">GCC 3.4.5</th>
<th width="33%">ICC 7.1</th>
<th width="33%">MSVC 8.0</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">100%</td>
<td align="center">100%</td>
<td align="center">100%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<b>Table 2: Relative memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 1
sequenced index.</b>
</p>
<p>
The figures confirm that in this case <code>multi_index_container</code> nodes are the
same size than those of its <code>std::list</code> counterpart.
</p>
<h4><a name="time_1s">Execution time</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<img src="perf_1s.png" alt="performance of multi_index_container with 1 sequenced index"
width="556" height="372"><br>
<b>Fig. 2: Performance of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 1 sequenced index.</b>
</p>
<p>
<code>multi_index_container</code> does not attain the performance
of its STL counterpart, although the figures are close. Again, the worst results
are those of GCC, with a degradation of up to 7%, while ICC and MSVC do not
exceed a mere 5%.
</p>
<h3><a name="test_2r">Results for 2 ordered indices</a></h3>
<p>
The following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code> was tested:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_non_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
</pre></blockquote>
<h4><a name="memory_2r">Memory consumption</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th width="33%">GCC 3.4.5</th>
<th width="33%">ICC 7.1</th>
<th width="33%">MSVC 8.0</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">70%</td>
<td align="center">70%</td>
<td align="center">70%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<b>Table 3: Relative memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 2
ordered indices.</b>
</p>
<p>
These results concinde with the theoretical formula for
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> = 28, <i>N</i> = <i>O</i> = 2 and <i>p</i> = <i>w</i> = 4.
</p>
<h4><a name="time_2r">Execution time</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<img src="perf_2o.png" alt="performance of multi_index_container with 2 ordered indices"
width="556" height="372"><br>
<b>Fig. 3: Performance of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 2 ordered indices.</b>
</p>
<p>
The experimental results confirm our hypothesis that <code>multi_index_container</code>
provides an improvement on execution time by an approximately constant factor,
which in this case lies around 60%. There is no obvious explanation for the
increased advantage of <code>multi_index_container</code> in MSVC for
<i>n</i>=10<sup>5</sup>.
</p>
<h3><a name="test_1r1s">Results for 1 ordered index + 1 sequenced index</a></h3>
<p>
The following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code> was tested:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>sequenced</span><span class=special><></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
</pre></blockquote>
<h4><a name="memory_1r1s">Memory consumption</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th width="33%">GCC 3.4.5</th>
<th width="33%">ICC 7.1</th>
<th width="33%">MSVC 8.0</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">75%</td>
<td align="center">75%</td>
<td align="center">75%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<b>Table 4: Relative memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 1
ordered index + 1 sequenced index.</b>
</p>
<p>
These results concinde with the theoretical formula for
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> = 24, <i>N</i> = 2, <i>O</i> = 1 and <i>p</i> = <i>w</i> = 4.
</p>
<h4><a name="time_1r1s">Execution time</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<img src="perf_1o1s.png"
alt="performance of multi_index_container with 1 ordered index + 1 sequenced index"
width="556" height="372"><br>
<b>Fig. 4: Performance of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 1 ordered index
+ 1 sequenced index.</b>
</p>
<p>
For <i>n</i>=10<sup>3</sup> and <i>n</i>=10<sup>4</sup>, the results
are in agreement with our theoretical analysis, showing a constant factor
improvement of 50-65% with respect to the STL-based manual simulation.
Curiously enough, this speedup gets even higher when
<i>n</i>=10<sup>5</sup> for two of the compilers, namely GCC and ICC.
In order to rule out spurious results, the tests
have been run many times, yielding similar outcoumes. Both test environments
are deployed on the same machine, which points to some OS-related reason for
this phenomenon.
</p>
<h3><a name="test_3r">Results for 3 ordered indices</a></h3>
<p>
The following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code> was tested:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_non_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_non_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
</pre></blockquote>
<h4><a name="memory_3r">Memory consumption</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th width="33%">GCC 3.4.5</th>
<th width="33%">ICC 7.1</th>
<th width="33%">MSVC 8.0</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">66.7%</td>
<td align="center">66.7%</td>
<td align="center">66.7%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<b>Table 5: Relative memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 3
ordered indices.</b>
</p>
<p>
These results concinde with the theoretical formula for
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> = 40, <i>N</i> = <i>O</i> = 3 and <i>p</i> = <i>w</i> = 4.
</p>
<h4><a name="time_3r">Execution time</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<img src="perf_3o.png" alt="performance of multi_index_container with 3 ordered indices"
width="556" height="372"><br>
<b>Fig. 5: Performance of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 3 ordered indices.</b>
</p>
<p>
Execution time for this case is between 45% and 55% lower than achieved with
an STL-based manual simulation of the same data structure.
</p>
<h3><a name="test_2r1s">Results for 2 ordered indices + 1 sequenced index</a></h3>
<p>
The following instantiation of <code>multi_index_container</code> was tested:
</p>
<blockquote><pre>
<span class=identifier>multi_index_container</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>,</span>
<span class=identifier>indexed_by</span><span class=special><</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>ordered_non_unique</span><span class=special><</span><span class=identifier>identity</span><span class=special><</span><span class=keyword>int</span><span class=special>></span> <span class=special>>,</span>
<span class=identifier>sequenced</span><span class=special><></span>
<span class=special>></span>
<span class=special>></span>
</pre></blockquote>
<h4><a name="memory_2r1s">Memory consumption</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<th width="33%">GCC 3.4.5</th>
<th width="33%">ICC 7.1</th>
<th width="33%">MSVC 8.0</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center">69.2%</td>
<td align="center">69.2%</td>
<td align="center">69.2%</td>
</tr>
</table>
<b>Table 6: Relative memory consumption of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 2
ordered indices + 1 sequenced index.</b>
</p>
<p>
These results concinde with the theoretical formula for
<i>S<sub>I</sub></i> = 36, <i>N</i> = 3, <i>O</i> = 2 and <i>p</i> = <i>w</i> = 4.
</p>
<h4><a name="time_2r1s">Execution time</a></h4>
<p align="center">
<img src="perf_2o1s.png"
alt="performance of multi_index_container with 2 ordered indices + 1 sequenced index"
width="556" height="372"><br>
<b>Fig. 6: Performance of <code>multi_index_container</code> with 2 ordered indices
+ 1 sequenced index.</b>
</p>
<p>
In accordance to the expectations, execution time is improved by a fairly constant
factor, which ranges from 45% to 55%.
</p>
<h2><a name="conclusions">Conclusions</a></h2>
<p>
We have shown that <code>multi_index_container</code> outperforms, both in space and
time efficiency, equivalent data structures obtained from the manual
combination of STL containers. This improvement gets larger when the number
of indices increase.
</p>
<p>
In the special case of replacing standard containers with single-indexed
<code>multi_index_container</code>s, the performance of Boost.MultiIndex
is comparable with that of the tested STL implementations, and can even yield
some improvements both in space consumption and execution time.
</p>
<hr>
<div class="prev_link"><a href="compiler_specifics.html"><img src="prev.gif" alt="compiler specifics" border="0"><br>
Compiler specifics
</a></div>
<div class="up_link"><a href="index.html"><img src="up.gif" alt="index" border="0"><br>
Index
</a></div>
<div class="next_link"><a href="examples.html"><img src="next.gif" alt="examples" border="0"><br>
Examples
</a></div><br clear="all" style="clear: all;">
<br>
<p>Revised May 9th 2006</p>
<p>© Copyright 2003-2006 Joaquín M López Muñoz.
Distributed under the Boost Software
License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file <a href="../../../LICENSE_1_0.txt">
LICENSE_1_0.txt</a> or copy at <a href="http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt">
http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt</a>)
</p>
</body>
</html>
|
