Subject: [ggl] spatial index - structure
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz)
Date: 2011-05-11 20:34:30
Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 2011-05-09 16:21, Bruno Lalande napisal(a):
>> Inserting were faster in gcc 3.3s instead of 3.6s and searching in
>> vs 1.7s instead of 2.0s.
>>
>>
>> Did you make sure to always compile with the -03 option?
>
> It was compiled with -O2 in G++, and full optimization (/0x) in VS. When
> I finish 'clean' version of polymorphic nodes I'll perform more tests
> with various compilers options.
I found out that implementation of both solutions requires small changes
which causes different code to be generated so I didn't implement a
version which works for both cases. Instead, I tested additional
visitors implementations, i.e. which stores the result as a class
attribute. E.g. if the result of is_leaf is a class attribute instead of
returned by a function the times of inserting are greater.
VS : Full optimization /Ox, Inline any suitable
g++ : O3
I've marked tests as follows:
compiler | node implementation | version
compiler:
VS - VS2010
GCC - g++ 4.5.2
node:
empty - Boost.Variant nodes
P - polymorphic nodes
version:
m - is_leaf result returned by method
a - is_leaf result returned as class attribute
e.g. VSm - VS2010 compiler, Boost.Variant, result returned by method
M:8 m:4
VSm VSa VSPm VSPa GCCm GCCa GCCPm GCCPa
ins 1M : 3.03 3.14 3.23 3.23 2.77 2.77 2.79 2.86
sea 100k : 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.93 5.93 5.82 5.79
rem 500k : 10.46 10.52 10.46 10.50 12.97 13.0 12.65 12.70
sea 100k : 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.76 2.00 1.99 1.94 1.93
ins 500k : 1.68 1.74 1.78 1.79 1.54 1.55 1.56 1.58
sea 100k : 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.01 3.22 3.24 3.17 3.14
M:32 m:8
VSm VSa VSPm VSPa GCCm GCCa GCCPm GCCPa
ins 1M : 3.56 3.67 3.70 3.72 3.27 3.27 3.27 3.32
sea 100k : 1.84 1.84 1.83 1.83 2.12 2.12 2.02 2.02
rem 500k : 4.17 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.12 4.12
sea 100k : 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.64
ins 500k : 1.91 1.97 1.99 2.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.78
sea 100k : 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10
Boost.Variant in relation to polymorphic nodes:
for VS:
Inserting times: faster
Searching times: equal/slightly slower(bigger nodes)
Removing times: slightly faster(small nodes)/slightly slower(big nodes)
for GCC
Inserting times: faster/equal(bigger nodes)
Searching times: slower
Removing times: slower
In addition to this, if Boost.Variant is used I'll leave 'm' version
only. It's most probable that in the case of polymorphic nodes, version
'Pa' will be used because there is a problem with implementation of
various visitors with the same parameters applied to the same visitable.
In this case I'll change Boost.Variant 'm' version which is used
currently to 'a' and release both.
What do you think? I guess it's better to switch to polymorphic nodes.
One will search more frequently.
Regards,
Adam