| [/============================================================================== |
| Copyright (C) 2001-2010 Joel de Guzman |
| Copyright (C) 2001-2010 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: |
| [@../../optimization/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 ../../optimization/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: |
| [@../../optimization/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 ../../optimization/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: |
| [@../../optimization/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 ../../optimization/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] |