I was reading up on the two different ways of implementing a stack: linked list and dynamic arrays. The main advantage of a linked list over a dynamic array was that the linked list did not have to be resized while a dynamic array had to be resized if too many elements were inserted hence wasting alot of time and memory.
That got me wondering if this is true for C++ (as there is a vector class which automatically resizes whenever new elements are inserted)?
It's difficult to compare the two, because the patterns of their memory usage are quite different.
Vector resizing
A vector resizes itself dynamically as needed. It does that by allocating a new chunk of memory, moving (or copying) data from the old chunk to the new chunk, the releasing the old one. In a typical case, the new chunk is 1.5x the size of the old (contrary to popular belief, 2x seems to be quite unusual in practice). That means for a short time while reallocating, it needs memory equal to roughly 2.5x as much as the data you're actually storing. The rest of the time, the "chunk" that's in use is a minimum of 2/3rds full, and a maximum of completely full. If all sizes are equally likely, we can expect it to average about 5/6ths full. Looking at it from the other direction, we can expect about 1/6th, or about 17% of the space to be "wasted" at any given time.
When we do resize by a constant factor like that (rather than, for example, always adding a specific size of chunk, such as growing in 4Kb increments) we get what's called amortized constant time addition. In other words, as the array grows, resizing happens exponentially less often. The average number of times items in the array have been copied tends to a constant (usually around 3, but depends on the growth factor you use).
linked list allocations
Using a linked list, the situation is rather different. We never see resizing, so we don't see extra time or memory usage for some insertions. At the same time, we do see extra time and memory used essentially all the time. In particular, each node in the linked list needs to contain a pointer to the next node. Depending on the size of the data in the node compared to the size of a pointer, this can lead to significant overhead. For example, let's assume you need a stack of ints. In a typical case where an int is the same size as a pointer, that's going to mean 50% overhead -- all the time. It's increasingly common for a pointer to be larger than an int; twice the size is fairly common (64-bit pointer, 32-bit int). In such a case, you have ~67% overhead -- i.e., obviously enough, each node devoting twice as much space to the pointer as the data being stored.
Unfortunately, that's often just the tip of the iceberg. In a typical linked list, each node is dynamically allocated individually. At least if you're storing small data items (such as int) the memory allocated for a node may be (usually will be) even larger than the amount you actually request. So -- you ask for 12 bytes of memory to hold an int and a pointer -- but the chunk of memory you get is likely to be rounded up to 16 or 32 bytes instead. Now you're looking at overhead of at least 75% and quite possibly ~88%.
As far as speed goes, the situation is rather similar: allocating and freeing memory dynamically is often quite slow. The heap manager typically has blocks of free memory, and has to spend time searching through them to find the block that's most suited to the size you're asking for. Then it (typically) has to split that block into two pieces, one to satisfy your allocation, and another of the remaining memory it can use to satisfy other allocations. Likewise, when you free memory, it typically goes back to that same list of free blocks and checks whether there's an adjoining block of memory already free, so it can join the two back together.
Allocating and managing lots of blocks of memory is expensive.
cache usage
Finally, with recent processors we run into another important factor: cache usage. In the case of a vector, we have all the data right next to each other. Then, after the end of the part of the vector that's in use, we have some empty memory. This leads to excellent cache usage -- the data we're using gets cached; the data we're not using has little or no effect on the cache at all.
With a linked list, the pointers (and probable overhead in each node) are distributed throughout our list. I.e., each piece of data we care about has, right next to it, the overhead of the pointer, and the empty space allocated to the node that we're not using. In short, the effective size of the cache is reduced by about the same factor as the overall overhead of each node in the list -- i.e., we might easily see only 1/8th of the cache storing the date we care about, and 7/8ths devoted to storing pointers and/or pure garbage.
Summary
A linked list can work well when you have a relatively small number of nodes, each of which is individually quite large. If (as is more typical for a stack) you're dealing with a relatively large number of items, each of which is individually quite small, you're much less likely to see a savings in time or memory usage. Quite the contrary, for such cases, a linked list is much more likely to basically waste a great deal of both time and memory.
Yes, what you say is true for C++. For this reason, the default container inside std::stack, which is the standard stack class in C++, is neither a vector nor a linked list, but a double ended queue (a deque). This has nearly all the advantages of a vector, but it resizes much better.
Basically, an std::deque is a linked list of arrays of sorts internally. This way, when it needs to resize, it just adds another array.
First, the performance trade-offs between linked-lists and dynamic arrays are a lot more subtle than that.
The vector class in C++ is, by requirement, implemented as a "dynamic array", meaning that it must have an amortized-constant cost for inserting elements into it. How this is done is usually by increasing the "capacity" of the array in a geometric manner, that is, you double the capacity whenever you run out (or come close to running out). In the end, this means that a reallocation operation (allocating a new chunk of memory and copying the current content into it) is only going to happen on a few occasions. In practice, this means that the overhead for the reallocations only shows up on performance graphs as little spikes at logarithmic intervals. This is what it means to have "amortized-constant" cost, because once you neglect those little spikes, the cost of the insert operations is essentially constant (and trivial, in this case).
In a linked-list implementation, you don't have the overhead of reallocations, however, you do have the overhead of allocating each new element on freestore (dynamic memory). So, the overhead is a bit more regular (not spiked, which can be needed sometimes), but could be more significant than using a dynamic array, especially if the elements are rather inexpensive to copy (small in size, and simple object). In my opinion, linked-lists are only recommended for objects that are really expensive to copy (or move). But at the end of the day, this is something you need to test in any given situation.
Finally, it is important to point out that locality of reference is often the determining factor for any application that makes extensive use and traversal of the elements. When using a dynamic array, the elements are packed together in memory one after the other and doing an in-order traversal is very efficient as the CPU can preemptively cache the memory ahead of the reading / writing operations. In a vanilla linked-list implementation, the jumps from one element to the next generally involves a rather erratic jumps between wildly different memory locations, which effectively disables this "pre-fetching" behavior. So, unless the individual elements of the list are very big and operations on them are typically very long to execute, this lack of pre-fetching when using a linked-list will be the dominant performance problem.
As you can guess, I rarely use a linked-list (std::list), as the number of advantageous applications are few and far between. Very often, for large and expensive-to-copy objects, it is often preferable to simply use a vector of pointers (you get basically the same performance advantages (and disadvantages) as a linked list, but with less memory usage (for linking pointers) and you get random-access capabilities if you need it).
The main case that I can think of, where a linked-list wins over a dynamic array (or a segmented dynamic array like std::deque) is when you need to frequently insert elements in the middle (not at either ends). However, such situations usually arise when you are keeping a sorted (or ordered, in some way) set of elements, in which case, you would use a tree structure to store the elements (e.g., a binary search tree (BST)), not a linked-list. And often, such trees store their nodes (elements) using a semi-contiguous memory layout (e.g., a breadth-first layout) within a dynamic array or segmented dynamic array (e.g., a cache-oblivious dynamic array).
Yes, it's true for C++ or any other language. Dynamic array is a concept. The fact that C++ has vector doesn't change the theory. The vector in C++ actually does the resizing internally so this task isn't the developers' responsibility. The actual cost doesn't magically disappear when using vector, it's simply offloaded to the standard library implementation.
std::vector is implemented using a dynamic array, whereas std::list is implemented as a linked list. There are trade-offs for using both data structures. Pick the one that best suits your needs.
As you indicated, a dynamic array can take a larger amount of time adding an item if it gets full, as it has to expand itself. However, it is faster to access since all of its members are grouped together in memory. This tight grouping also usually makes it more cache-friendly.
Linked lists don't need to resize ever, but traversing them takes longer as the CPU must jump around in memory.
That got me wondering if this is true for c++ as there is a vector class which automatically resizes whenever new elements are inserted.
Yes, it still holds, because a vector resize is a potentially expensive operation. Internally, if the pre-allocated size for the vector is reached and you attempt to add new elements, a new allocation takes place and the old data is moved to the new memory location.
From the C++ documentation:
vector::push_back - Add element at the end
Adds a new element at the end of the vector, after its current last element. The content of val is copied (or moved) to the new element.
This effectively increases the container size by one, which causes an automatic reallocation of the allocated storage space if -and only if- the new vector size surpasses the current vector capacity.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/GoingNative-2012/Keynote-Bjarne-Stroustrup-Cpp11-Style
Skip to 44:40. You should prefer std::vector whenever possible over a std::list, as explained in the video, by Bjarne himself. Since std::vector stores all of it's elements next to each other, in memory, and because of that it will have the advantage of being cached in memory. And this is true for adding and removing elements from std::vector and also searching. He states that std::list is 50-100x slower than a std::vector.
If you really want a stack, you should really use std::stack instead of making your own.
Related
This is in continuation of my last question. I am failed to understand the memory taken up by vector. Problem skeleton:
Consider an vector which is an collection of lists and lists is an collection of pointers. Exactly like:
std::vector<std::list<ABC*> > vec;
where ABC is my class. We work on 64bit machines, so size of pointer is 8 bytes.
At the start of my flow in the project, I resize this vector to an number so that I can store lists at respective indexes.
vec.resize(613284686);
At this point, capacity and size of the vector would be 613284686. Right. After resizing, I am inserting the lists at corresponding indexes as:
// Some where down in the program, make these lists. Simple push for now.
std::list<ABC*> l1;
l1.push_back(<pointer_to_class_ABC>);
l1.push_back(<pointer_to_class_ABC>);
// Copy the list at location
setInfo(613284686, l1);
void setInfo(uint64_t index, std::list<ABC*> list>) {
std::copy(list.begin(), list.end(), std::back_inserter(vec.at(index));
}
Alright. So inserting is done. Notable things are:
Size of vector is : 613284686
Entries in the vector is : 3638243731 // Calculated this by going over vector indexes and add the size of std::lists at each index.
Now, since there are 3638243731 entries of pointers, I would expect memory taken by this vector is ~30Gb. 3638243731 * 8(bytes) = ~30Gb.
BUT BUT When I have this data in memory, memory peaks to, 400G.
And then I clear up this vector with:
std::vector<std::list<nl_net> >& ccInfo = getVec(); // getVec defined somewhere and return me original vec.
std::vector<std::list<nl_net> >::iterator it = ccInfo.begin();
for(; it != ccInfo.end(); ++it) {
(*it).clear();
}
ccInfo.clear(); // Since it is an reference
std::vector<std::list<nl_net> >().swap(ccInfo); // This makes the capacity of the vector 0.
Well, after clearing up this vector, memory drops down to 100G. That is too much holding from an vector.
Would you all like to correct me what I am failing to understand here?
P.S. I can not reproduce it on smaller cases and it is coming in my project.
vec.resize(613284686);
At this point, capacity and size of the vector would be 613284686
It would be at least 613284686. It could be more.
std::vector<std::list<nl_net> >().swap(ccInfo); // This makes the capacity of the vector 0.
Technically, there is no guarantee by the standard that a default constructed vector wouldn't have capacity other than 0... But in practice, this is probably true.
Now, since there are 3638243731 entries of pointers, I would expect memory taken by this vector is ~30Gb. 3638243731 * 8(bytes)
But the vector doesn't contain pointers. It contains std::list<ABC*> objects. So, you should expect vec.capacity() * sizeof(std::list<ABC*>) bytes used by the buffer of the vector itself. Each list has at least a pointer to beginning and the end.
Furthermore, you should expect each element in each of the lists to use memory as well. Since the list is doubly linked, you should expect about two pointers plus the data (a third pointer) worth of memory for each element.
Also, each pointer in the lists apparently points to an ABC object, and each of those use sizeof(ABC) memory as well.
Furthermore, since each element of the linked lists are allocated separately, and each dynamic allocation requires book-keeping so that they can be individually de-allocated, and each allocation must be aligned to the maximum native alignment, and the free store may have fragmented during the execution, there will be much overhead associated with each dynamic allocation.
Well, after clearing up this vector, memory drops down to 100G.
It is quite typical for the language implementation to retain (some) memory it has allocated from the OS. If your target system documents an implementation specific function for explicitly requesting release of such memory, then you could attempt using that.
However, if the vector buffer wasn't the latest dynamic allocation, then its deallocation may have left a massive reusable area in the free store, but if there exists later allocations, then all that memory might not be releasable back to the OS.
Even if the langauge implementation has released the memory to the OS, it is quite typical for the OS to keep the memory mapped for the process until another process actually needs the memory for something else. So, depending on how you're measuring memory use, the results might not necessarily be meaningful.
General rules of thumb that may be useful:
Don't use a vector unless you use all (or most) of the indices. In case where you don't, consider a sparse array instead (there is no standard container for such data structure though).
When using vector, reserve before resize if you know the upper bound of allocation.
Don't use linked lists without a good reason.
Don't rely on getting all memory back from peak usage (back to the OS that is; The memory is still usable for further dynamic allocations).
Don't stress about virtual memory usage.
std::list is a fragmented memory container. Typically each node MUST have the data it is storing, plus the 2 prev/next pointers, and then you have to add in the space required within the OS allocation table (typically 16 or 32 bytes per allocation - depending on OS). You then have to account for the fact all allocations must be returned on a 16byte boundary (on Intel/AMD based 64bit machines anyway).
So using the example of std::list<ABC*> the size of a pointer is 8, however you will need at least 48bytes to store each element (at least).
So memory usage for ONLY the list entries is going to be around: 3638243731 * 48(bytes) = ~162Gb.
This is of course assuming that there is no memory fragmentation (where there may be a block of 62bytes free, and the OS returns the entire block of 62 rather than the 48 requested). We are also assuming here that the OS has a minimum allocation size of 48 bytes (and not say, 64bytes, which would not be overly silly, but would push the usage up far higher).
The size of the std::lists themselves within the vector comes to around 18GB. So in total we are looking at 180Gb at least to store that vector. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that the extra allocations are additional OS book keeping info, for all of those individual memory allocations (e.g. lists of loaded memory pages, lists of swapped out memory pages, the read/write/mmap permissions, etc, etc).
As a final note, instead of using swap on a newly constructed vector, you can just use shrink to fit.
ccInfo.clear();
ccInfo.shrinkToFit();
The main vector needs some more consideration. I get the impression it will always be a fixed size. So why not use a std::array instead? A std::vector always allocates more memory than it needs to allow for growth. The bigger your vector the bigger the reservation of memory to allow for more even growth. The reasononing behind is to keep relocations in memory to a minimum. Relocations on really big vectors take up huge amounts of time so a lot of extra memory is reserved to prevent this.
No vector function that can delete elements (such as vector::clear and ::erase) also deallocates memory (e.g. lower the capacity). The size will decrease but the capacity doesn't. Again, this is meant to prevent relocations; if you delete you are also very likely to add again. ::shrink_to_fit also doesn't guarantuee you that all of the used memory is released.*
Next is the choice of a list to store elements. Is a list really applicable? Lists are strong in random access/insertion/removal operations. Are you really constantly adding and removing ABC objects to the list in random locations? Or is another container type with different properties but with contiguous memory more suitable? Another std::vector or std::array perhaps. If the answer is yes than you're pretty much stuck with a list and its scattered memory allocations. If no, than you could win back a lot of memory by using a different container type.
So, what is it you really want to do? Do you really need dynamic growth on both the main container and its elements? Do you really need random manipulation? Or can you use fixed-size arrays for both container and ABC objects and use iteration instead? When contemplating this you might want to read up on the available containers and their properties on en.cppreference.com. It will help you decide what is most appropriate.
*For the fun of it I dug around in VS2017's implementation and it creates an entirely new vector without the growth segment, copies the old elements and then reassigns the internal pointers of the old vector to the new one while deleting the old memory. So at least with that compiler you can count on memory being released.
In the worst case, on a section (is this the right term?) of memory of size n, linked-list needs O(n) time to allocate a block of memory in suitable size.
However, if malloc is tree-based, say, an interval tree, only O(logn) time is needed. Furthermore, a tree can satisfied such requirements without extra time (in terms of time complexity) as "Find the smallest block of free memory whose size is larger themx" , "Always allocate on the borders of free memory" and "Free only a part of the allocated memory". A drawback maybe that freeing memory takes O(logn) time.
Thanks
ps. I've seen the question Data structures for traversable memory pool, but the author doesn't seem to have figured it out.
I don't KNOW the answer, but here's some thoughts:
There is absolutely no REQUIREMENT that malloc is implemented in a particular way. However, an unbalanced tree is just as bad as a linked list in the worst case. A balanced linked list is a lot more maintenance. A tree, where you have two links per node, also takes up more memory than a single-linked list. Removing nodes in a linked list is easier as well as inserting at the end is very easy.
And in most systems, there is (almost) exactly one free for every malloc - so if you make one faster by making the other slower, you gain very little.
It is also relatively common that the "next allocation is the same as the previous one", meaning that if the last allocation is first in list, it's an O(1) operation.
In real-time systems, buckets are often used for allocations, such that there are a number of fixed sizes, and each time something is allocated out of the main heap, the size is rounded to the nearest larger size, and when freed it goes into the bucket of that size (which is a linked list). If there is a free element of that size already, then that allocation is used. Besides the speed of allocation/free being O(1), this has the benefit of reducing fragmentation - it's not completely impossible to "rip all the heap into small pieces, and then not have any large lumps left", but it's at least not possible to take up most of the memory by simply allocating a byte more each time until you have half the heap size in one allocation.
(Also, in Linux's GLIBC, allocations over a certain size do not end up in the linked list at all - they are allocated directly via mmap and released back with munmap when free is called)
Finally, algorithmic complexity is not everything - in real life, it is the actual time spent on something that matters - even if the algorithm has O(n) but each operation is fast, it can beat O(logn). Similarly, particularly in C++, small allocations are highly dominant, which means that overhead of more memory per node is an important factor.
There is no specification which says that malloc needs to be based on a linked list. Between platforms, the implementation may change. On one platform, speed may be crucial and a tree can be implemented, on another platform, memory is more expensive and a linked list (or such) is used in order to save as much memory as possible.
I have a server that throughout the course of 24 hours keeps adding new items to a set. Elements are not deleted over the 24 period, just new elements keep getting inserted.
Then at end of period the set is cleared, and new elements start getting added again for another 24 hours.
Do you think a fast pool allocator would be useful here as to reuse the memory and possibly help with fragmentation?
The set grows to around 1 million elements. Each element is about 1k.
It's highly unlikely …but you are of course free to test it in your program.
For a collection of that size and allocation pattern (more! more! more! + grow! grow! grow!), you should use an array of vectors. Just keep it in contiguous blocks and reserve() when they are created and you never need to reallocate/resize or waste space and bandwidth traversing lists. vector is going to be best for your memory layout with a collection that large. Not one big vector (which would take a long time to resize), but several vectors, each which represent chunks (ideal chunk size can vary by platform -- I'd start with 5MB each and measure from there). If you follow, you see there is no need to resize or reuse memory; just create an allocation every few minutes for the next N objects -- there is no need for high frequency/speed object allocation and recreation.
The thing about a pool allocator would suggest you want a lot of objects which have discontiguous allocations, lots of inserts and deletes like a list of big allocations -- this is bad for a few reasons. If you want to create an implementation which optimizes for contiguous allocation at this size, just aim for the blocks with vectors approach. Allocation and lookup will both be close to minimal. At that point, allocation times should be tiny (relative to the other work you do). Then you will also have nothing unusual or surprising about your allocation patterns. However, the fast pool allocator suggests you treat this collection as a list, which will have terrible performance for this problem.
Once you implement that block+vector approach, a better performance comparison (at that point) would be to compare boost's pool_allocator vs std::allocator. Of course, you could test all three, but memory fragmentation is likely going to be reduced far more by that block of vectors approach, if you implement it correctly. Reference:
If you are seriously concerned about performance, use fast_pool_allocator when dealing with containers such as std::list, and use pool_allocator when dealing with containers such as std::vector.
I have a problem I am working on where I need to use some sort of 2 dimensional array. The array is fixed width (four columns), but I need to create extra rows on the fly.
To do this, I have been using vectors of vectors, and I have been using some nested loops that contain this:
array.push_back(vector<float>(4));
array[n][0] = a;
array[n][1] = b;
array[n][2] = c;
array[n][3] = d;
n++
to add the rows and their contents. The trouble is that I appear to be running out of memory with the number of elements I was trying to create, so I reduced the number that I was using. But then I started reading about deque, and thought it would allow me to use more memory because it doesn't have to be contiguous. I changed all mentions of "vector" to "deque", in this loop, as well as all declarations. But then it appeared that I ran out of memory again, this time with even with the reduced number of rows.
I looked at how much memory my code is using, and when I am using deque, the memory rises steadily to above 2GB, and the program closes soon after, even when using the smaller number of rows. I'm not sure exactly where in this loop it is when it runs out of memory.
When I use vectors, the memory usage (for the same number of rows) is still under 1GB, even when the loop exits. It then goes on to a similar loop where more rows are added, still only reaching about 1.4GB.
So my question is. Is this normal for deque to use more than twice the memory of vector, or am I making an erroneous assumption in thinking I can just replace the word "vector" with "deque" in the declarations/initializations and the above code?
Thanks in advance.
I'm using:
MS Visual C++ 2010 (32-bit)
Windows 7 (64-bit)
The real answer here has little to do with the core data structure. The answer is that MSVC's implementation of std::deque is especially awful and degenerates to an array of pointers to individual elements, rather than the array of arrays it should be. Frankly, only twice the memory use of vector is surprising. If you had a better implementation of deque you'd get better results.
It all depends on the internal implementation of deque (I won't speak about vector since it is relatively straightforward).
Fact is, deque has completely different guarantees than vector (the most important one being that it supports O(1) insertion at both ends while vector only supports O(1) insertion at the back). This in turn means the internal structures managed by deque have to be more complex than vector.
To allow that, a typical deque implementation will split its memory in several non-contiguous blocks. But each individual memory block has a fixed overhead to allow the memory management to work (eg. whatever the size of the block, the system may need another 16 or 32 bytes or whatever in addition, just for bookkeeping). Since, contrary to a vector, a deque requires many small, independent blocks, the overhead stacks up which can explain the difference you see. Also note that those individual memory blocks need to be managed (maybe in separate structures?), which probably means some (or a lot of) additional overhead too.
As for a way to solve your problem, you could try what #BasileStarynkevitch suggested in the comments, this will indeed reduce your memory usage but it will get you only so far because at some point you'll still run out of memory. And what if you try to run your program on a machine that only has 256MB RAM? Any other solution which goal is to reduce your memory footprint while still trying to keep all your data in memory will suffer from the same problems.
A proper solution when handling large datasets like yours would be to adapt your algorithms and data structures in order to be able to handle small partitions at a time of your whole dataset, and load/save those partitions as needed in order to make room for the other partitions. Unfortunately since it probably means disk access, it also means a big drop in performance but hey, you can't eat the cake and have it too.
Theory
There two common ways to efficiently implement a deque: either with a modified dynamic array or with a doubly linked list.
The modified dynamic array uses is basically a dynamic array that can grow from both ends, sometimes called array deques. These array deques have all the properties of a dynamic array, such as constant-time random access, good locality of reference, and inefficient insertion/removal in the middle, with the addition of amortized constant-time insertion/removal at both ends, instead of just one end.
There are several implementations of modified dynamic array:
Allocating deque contents from the center of the underlying array,
and resizing the underlying array when either end is reached. This
approach may require more frequent resizings and waste more space,
particularly when elements are only inserted at one end.
Storing deque contents in a circular buffer, and only resizing when
the buffer becomes full. This decreases the frequency of resizings.
Storing contents in multiple smaller arrays, allocating additional
arrays at the beginning or end as needed. Indexing is implemented by
keeping a dynamic array containing pointers to each of the smaller
arrays.
Conclusion
Different libraries may implement deques in different ways, but generally as a modified dynamic array. Most likely your standard library uses the approach #1 to implement std::deque, and since you append elements only from one end, you ultimately waste a lot of space. For that reason, it makes an illusion that std::deque takes up more space than usual std::vector.
Furthermore, if std::deque would be implemented as doubly-linked list, that would result in a waste of space too since each element would need to accommodate 2 pointers in addition to your custom data.
Implementation with approach #3 (modified dynamic array approach too) would again result in a waste of space to accommodate additional metadata such as pointers to all those small arrays.
In any case, std::deque is less efficient in terms of storage than plain old std::vector. Without knowing what do you want to achieve I cannot confidently suggest which data structure do you need. However, it seems like you don't even know what deques are for, therefore, what you really want in your situation is std::vector. Deques, in general, have different application.
Deque can have additional memory overhead over vector because it's made of a few blocks instead of contiguous one.
From en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque:
As opposed to std::vector, the elements of a deque are not stored contiguously: typical implementations use a sequence of individually allocated fixed-size arrays.
The primary issue is running out of memory.
So, do you need all the data in memory at once?
You may never be able to accomplish this.
Partial Processing
You may want to consider processing the data into "chunks" or smaller sub-matrices. For example, using the standard rectangular grid:
Read data of first quadrant.
Process data of first quandrant.
Store results (in a file) of first quandrant.
Repeat for remaining quandrants.
Searching
If you are searching for a particle or a set of datum, you can do that without reading in the entire data set into memory.
Allocate a block (array) of memory.
Read a portion of the data into this block of memory.
Search the block of data.
Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the data is found.
Streaming Data
If your application is receiving the raw data from an input source (other than a file), you will want to store the data for later processing.
This will require more than one buffer and is more efficient using at least two threads of execution.
The Reading Thread will be reading data into a buffer until the buffer is full. When the buffer is full, it will read data into another empty one.
The Writing Thread will initially wait until either the first read buffer is full or the read operation is finished. Next, the Writing Thread takes data out of the read buffer and writes to a file. The Write Thread then starts writing from the next read buffer.
This technique is called Double Buffering or Multiple Buffering.
Sparse Data
If there is a lot of zero or unused data in the matrix, you should try using Sparse Matrices. Essentially, this is a list of structures that hold the data's coordinates and the value. This also works when most of the data is a common value other than zero. This saves a lot of memory space; but costs a little bit more execution time.
Data Compression
You could also change your algorithms to use data compression. The idea here is to store the data location, value and the number or contiguous equal values (a.k.a. runs). So instead of storing 100 consecutive data points of the same value, you would store the starting position (of the run), the value, and 100 as the quantity. This saves a lot of space, but requires more processing time when accessing the data.
Memory Mapped File
There are libraries that can treat a file as memory. Essentially, they read in a "page" of the file into memory. When the requests go out of the "page", they read in another page. All this is performed "behind the scenes". All you need to do is treat the file like memory.
Summary
Arrays and deques are not your primary issue, quantity of data is. Your primary issue can be resolved by processing small pieces of data at a time, compressing the data storage, or treating the data in the file as memory. If you are trying to process streaming data, don't. Ideally, streaming data should be placed into a file and then processed later.
A historical purpose of a file is to contain data that doesn't fit into memory.
It is said that iterating through a vector (as in reading all it's element) is faster than iterating through a list, because of optimized cache.
Is there any ressource on the web that would quantify how much it impacts the performances ?
Also, would it be better to use a custom linked list, whom elements would be prealocated so that they are consecutive in memory?
The idea behind that is that I want to store elements in a certain order that won't change. I still need to be able to insert some at run time in the midle quickly, but most of them will still be consecutive, because the order won't change.
Does the fact that the elements are consecutive have an impact in the cache, or because I'll still call list_element->next instead of ++list_element it does not improve anything ?
The main difference between vector and lists is that in vector elements are constructed subsequently inside a preallocated buffer, while in a list elements are constructed one by one.
As a consequence, elements in a vector are granted to occupy a contiguous memory space, while list elements (unless some specific situations, like a custom allocator working that way) aren't granted to be so, and can be "sparse" around the memory.
Now, since the processor operates on a cache (that can be up to 1000 times faster than the main RAM) that remaps entire pages of the main memory, if elements are consecutive it is higly probable that they fits a same memory page and hence are moved all together in the cache when iteration begins. While proceeding, everything happens in the cache without further moving of data or further access to the slower RAM.
With list-s, since elements are sparse everywhere, "going to the next" means refer to an address that may not be in the same memory page of its previous, and hence, the cache needs to be updated upon every iteration step, accessing the slower RAM on each iteration.
The performance difference greatly depends on the processor and on the type of memory used for both the main RAM and the cache, and on the way the std::allocator (and ultimately operator new and malloc) are implemented, so a general number is impossible to be given.
(Note: great difference means bad RAM respect to to the cache, but may also means bad implementation on list-s)
The efficiency gains from cache coherency due to compact representation of data structures can be rather dramatic. In the case of vectors compared to lists, compact representation can be better not just for read but even for insertion (shifting in vectors) of elements up to the order of 500K elements for some particular architecture as demonstrated in Figure 3 of this article by Bjarne Stroustrup:
http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/Computer-Jan12.pdf
(Publisher site: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MC.2011.353)
I think that if this is a critical factor for your program, you should profile it on your architecture.
Not sure if I can explain it right but here's my view(i'm thinking along the lines of translated machine instruction below:),
Vector iterator(contiguous memory):
When you increment a vector iterator, the iterator value is simply added the size of the object(known at compile time) to point to the next object. In most CPUs this is anything from one to three instructions at most.
List iterator(linked list http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/List.html):
When you increment a list iterator(the pointed object), the location of the forward link is located by adding some number to the base of the object pointed and then loaded up as the new value of the iterator. There is more than one memory access for this and is slower than the vector iteration operation.