libs/spirit/doc/karma/numeric_performance.qbk
[/==============================================================================
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]
