[phobos] std.algorithm.sort slow as molasses
David Simcha
dsimcha at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 07:55:32 PDT 2010
Here are some benchmarks of std.algorithm.sort vs. GCC 4.1.2's
implementation of STL sort() and the implementation I use in my dstats
library for lots of statistical calculations.
D code:
import std.stdio, std.perf, std.random, std.algorithm, dstats.sort;
void main(string[] args) {
auto nums = new float[1_000_000];
foreach(ref num; nums) {
num = uniform(0.0, 10_000_000.0);
}
auto pc = new PerformanceCounter;
pc.start;
if(args.length > 1 && args[1] == "--dstats") {
dstats.sort.qsort(nums);
} else {
std.algorithm.sort(nums);
}
pc.stop;
writeln(pc.milliseconds);
}
C++ code:
#include <vector>
#include <ctime>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// Generates quick and dirty random numbers.
float sloppyRand() {
unsigned num = 0;
num += (rand() << 16);
num += rand();
return num;
}
int main() {
vector<float> nums(1000000);
for(int i = 0; i < nums.size(); i++) {
nums[i] = sloppyRand();
}
double startTime = clock();
sort(nums.begin(), nums.end());
double stopTime = clock();
double clocksPerMillisec = CLOCKS_PER_SEC / 1000.0;
cout << (stopTime - startTime) / clocksPerMillisec << endl;
}
Compilers:
DMD 2.047 (for D)
GCC 4.1.2 (For C++; I couldn't get the C++ code to compile on DMC because
of STL issues that I don't feel like solving, even though this would level
the playing field because D and C++ would have the same backend)
Results on Indel Xeon x5472:
Compiler settings: -O -inline -release (for D), -O3 (for GCC)
D, using std.algorithm.sort: 330 milliseconds
D, using dstats.qsort: 96 milliseconds
C++, using 64-bit compile: 90 milliseconds
C++, using 32-bit compile: 100 milliseconds
I'd say std.algorithm.sort could use some serious optimization.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20100702/1a52f247/attachment.html>
More information about the phobos
mailing list