123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169 |
- [/==============================================================================
- Copyright (C) 2001-2011 Joel de Guzman
- Copyright (C) 2001-2011 Hartmut Kaiser
- Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying
- file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
- ===============================================================================/]
- [section:numeric_performance Performance of Numeric Generators]
- [section:int_performance Comparing the performance of a single int_ generator]
- These performance measurements are centered around default formatting of a
- single `int` integer number using different libraries and methods.
- The overall execution times for those examples are compared below. We compare
- using `sprintf`, C++ iostreams, __boost_format__, and __karma__.
- For the full source code of the performance test please see here:
- [@../../workbench/karma/int_generator.cpp int_generator.cpp]. All the
- measurements have been done by executing `1e7` iterations for each
- formatting type (NUMITERATIONS is set to `1e7` in the code shown below).
- [import ../../workbench/karma/int_generator.cpp]
- Code used to measure the performance for `ltoa`:
- [karma_int_performance_ltoa]
- Code used to measure the performance for standard C++ iostreams:
- [karma_int_performance_iostreams]
- Code used to measure the performance for __boost_format__:
- [karma_int_performance_format]
- Code used to measure the performance for __karma__ using a plain character buffer:
- [karma_int_performance_plain]
- The following table shows the overall performance results collected
- while using different compilers. All times are in seconds measured for `1e7`
- iterations (platform: Windows7, Intel Core Duo(tm) Processor, 2.8GHz, 4GByte RAM).
- For a more readable comparison of the results see this
- [link spirit.karma.int_performance figure].
- [table Performance comparison for a single int (all times in [s], `1e7` iterations)
- [[Library] [gcc 4.4.0 (32 bit)] [VC++ 10 (32 bit)] [Intel 11.1 (32 bit)] [gcc 4.4.0 (64 bit)] [VC++ 10 (64 bit)] [Intel 11.1 (64 bit)]]
- [[ltoa] [1.542] [0.895] [0.884] [1.163] [1.099] [0.906]]
- [[iostreams] [6.548] [13.727] [11.898] [3.464] [8.316] [8.115]]
- [[__boost_format__] [16.998] [21.813] [20.477] [17.464] [14.662] [13.646]]
- [[__karma__ int_] [1.421] [0.744] [0.697] [1.072] [0.953] [0.606]]
- ]
- [fig int_performance.png..Performance comparison for a single int..spirit.karma.int_performance]
- [endsect]
- [/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////]
- [section:double_performance Comparing the performance of a single double_ generator]
- These performance measurements are centered around default formatting of a
- single `double` floating point number using different libraries and methods.
- The overall execution times for those examples are compared below. We compare
- using `sprintf`, C++ iostreams, __boost_format__, and __karma__.
- For the full source code of the performance test please see here:
- [@../../workbench/karma/double_performance.cpp double_performance.cpp]. All the
- measurements have been done by executing `1e6` iterations for each
- formatting type (NUMITERATIONS is set to `1e6` in the code shown below).
- [import ../../workbench/karma/double_performance.cpp]
- Code used to measure the performance for `sprintf`:
- [karma_double_performance_printf]
- Code used to measure the performance for standard C++ iostreams:
- [karma_double_performance_iostreams]
- Code used to measure the performance for __boost_format__:
- [karma_double_performance_format]
- The following code shows the common definitions used by all __karma__ performance
- measurements as listed below:
- [karma_double_performance_definitions]
- Code used to measure the performance for __karma__ using a plain character buffer:
- [karma_double_performance_plain]
- The following table shows the overall performance results collected
- while using different compilers. All times are in seconds measured for `1e6`
- iterations (platform: Windows7, Intel Core Duo(tm) Processor, 2.8GHz, 4GByte RAM).
- For a more readable comparison of the results see this
- [link spirit.karma.double_performance figure].
- [table Performance comparison for a single double (all times in [s], `1e6` iterations)
- [[Library] [gcc 4.4.0 (32 bit)] [VC++ 10 (32 bit)] [Intel 11.1 (32 bit)] [gcc 4.4.0 (64 bit)] [VC++ 10 (64 bit)] [Intel 11.1 (64 bit)]]
- [[sprintf] [0.755] [0.965] [0.880] [0.713] [0.807] [0.694]]
- [[iostreams] [2.316] [2.624] [1.964] [1.634] [1.468] [1.354]]
- [[__boost_format__] [3.188] [3.737] [2.878] [3.217] [2.672] [2.011]]
- [[__karma__ double_] [0.813] [0.561] [0.368] [0.426] [0.260] [0.218]]
- ]
- [fig double_performance.png..Performance comparison for a single double..spirit.karma.double_performance]
- [endsect]
- [////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////]
- [section:format_performance Comparing the performance of a sequence of several generators]
- These performance measurements are centered around formatting of a sequence of
- different items, including 2 `double` floating point numbers using different
- libraries and methods. The overall execution times for those examples are
- compared below. We compare using `sprintf`, C++ iostreams, __boost_format__,
- and __karma__.
- For the full source code of the performance test please see here:
- [@../../workbench/karma/format_performance.cpp format_performance.cpp]. All the
- measurements have been done by doing `1e6` iterations for each formatting
- type (NUMITERATIONS is set to `1e6`).
- [import ../../workbench/karma/format_performance.cpp]
- Code used to measure the performance for sprintf:
- [karma_format_performance_printf]
- Code used to measure the performance for standard iostreams:
- [karma_format_performance_iostreams]
- Code used to measure the performance for __boost_format__:
- [karma_format_performance_format]
- The following code shows the common definitions used by all __karma__
- performance measurements as listed below:
- [karma_format_performance_definitions]
- Code used to measure the performance for __karma__ using a plain character
- buffer:
- [karma_format_performance_plain]
- The following table shows the overall performance results collected
- while using different compilers. All times are in seconds measured for `1e6`
- iterations (platform: Windows7, Intel Core Duo(tm) Processor, 2.8GHz, 4GByte RAM).
- For a more readable comparison of the results see this
- [link spirit.karma.format_performance figure].
- [table Performance comparison for a sequence of several items (all times in [s], `1e6` iterations)
- [[Library] [gcc 4.4.0 (32 bit)] [VC++ 10 (32 bit)] [Intel 11.1 (32 bit)] [gcc 4.4.0 (64 bit)] [VC++ 10 (64 bit)] [Intel 11.1 (64 bit)]]
- [[sprintf] [1.725] [1.892] [1.903] [1.469] [1.608] [1.493]]
- [[iostreams] [4.827] [5.287] [4.444] [3.112] [3.319] [2.877]]
- [[__boost_format__] [5.881] [7.089] [5.801] [5.455] [5.254] [4.164]]
- [[__karma__] [1.942] [1.242] [0.999] [1.334] [0.758] [0.686]]
- ]
- [fig format_performance.png..Performance comparison for a sequence of several items..spirit.karma.format_performance]
- [endsect]
- [endsect]
|