From: Neal D. Becker (ndbecker2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-14 10:44:46
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Neal D. Becker" <ndbecker2_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> Here is an update to cycle_iterator. This is based on the original
>> design
>> by Gennadiy Rozental. After fairly extensive performance testing I am
>> getting good results (compared to my old implementation which was
>> hand-written, not based on boost iterators), after adding operator[].
>
> ... which got poor results? Just wondering.
>
I got benchmarks about 1/2 speed of hand-written implementation for all
versions of the cycle_iterator until I added operator[]. Testing was
mainly using the Ring class. Not much of a benchmark, but here is what I
used:
,----[ /home/nbecker/shannon/TestAloha/TestRing3.cc ]
| #include "Ring3.H"
| #include <numeric>
| #include <iostream>
|
| int main() {
| Ring<int> r1 (1000000);
| std::fill (r1.begin(), r1.end(), 1);
|
| int sum = 0;
| for (int test = 0; test < 200; test++) {
| for (size_t i = 0; i < r1.size(); i += 2)
| sum += r1[i];
| }
| // return sum;
| std::cout << sum << '\n';
| }
`----
I wanted to see how much overhead was associated with indexing operations.
Poor results were obtained when Ring class said:
T& operator[] (int n) { return *(it+n); }
I guess this has to construct a temp iterator, advance it , then dereference
it. Now Ring says:
T& operator[] (int n) { return it[n]; }
and cycle_iterator #1 says:
reference operator[] (int n) { return *reduce (base+n, b, e); }
similarly, the 2nd implementation says:
reference operator[] (int n) { return *(base + index()); }
Both of these latter versions give similar results.
I switched from iterator_adaptor to facade to see if performance changed
noticeably. It didn't. But honestly, facade is easier for me to
understand, so I prefer it. The use of CRTP is iterator_adaptor exceeds my
brain's recursion limit.
BTW, I have added some more stuff to Ring, as well as fixing the glaring
error due to lack of copy constructor.