I have a legacy code that receives some proprietary, parses it and creates a bunch of static char arrays (embedded in class representing the message), to represent NULL strings. Afterwards pointers to the string are passed all around and finally serialized to some buffer.
Profiling shows that str*() methods take a lot of time.
Therefore I would like to use memcpy() whether it's possible. To achive it I need a way to associate length with pointer to NULL terminating string. I though about:
Using std::string looks less efficient, since it requires memory allocation and thread synchronization.
I can use std::pair<pointer to string, length>. But in this case I need to maintain length "manually".
What do you think?
use std::string
Profiling shows that str*() methods
take a lot of time
Sure they do ... operating on any array takes a lot of time.
Therefore I would like to use memcpy()
whether it's possible. To achive it I
need a way to associate length with
pointer to NULL terminating string. I
though about:
memcpy is not really any slower than strcpy. In fact if you perform a strlen to identify how much you are going to memcpy then strcpy is almost certainly faster.
Using std::string looks less
efficient, since it requires memory
allocation and thread synchronization
It may look less efficient but there are a lot of better minds than yours or mine that have worked on it
I can use std::pair. But in this case I need to
maintain length "manually".
thats one way to save yourself time on the length calculation. Obviously you need to maintain the length manually. This is how windows BSTRs work, effectively (though the length is stored immediately prior, in memory, to the actual string data). std::string. for example, already does this ...
What do you think?
I think your question is asked terribly. There is no real question asked which makes answering next to impossible. I advise you actually ask specific questions in the future.
Use std::string. It's an advice already given, but let me explain why:
One, it uses a custom memory allocation scheme. Your char* strings are probably malloc'ed. That means they are worst-case aligned, which really isn't needed for a char[]. std::string doesn't suffer from needless alignment. Furthermore, common implementatios of std::string use the "Small String Optimization" which eliminates a heap allocation altogether, and improves locality of reference. The string size will be on the same cache line as the char[] itself.
Two, it keeps the string length, which is indeed a speed optimization. Most str* functions are slower because they don't have this information up front.
A second option would be a rope class, e.g. from SGI. This be more efficient by eliminating some string copies.
Your post doesn't explain where the str*() function calls are coming from; passing around char * certainly doesn't invoke them. Identify the sites that actually do the string manipulation and then try to find out if they're doing so inefficiently. One common pitfall is that strcat first needs to scan the destination string for the terminating 0 character. If you call strcat several times in a row, you can end up with a O(N^2) algorithm, so be careful about this.
Replacing strcpy by memcpy doesn't make any significant difference; strcpy doesn't do an extra pass to find the length of the string, it's simply (conceptually!) a character-by-character copy that stops when it encounters the terminating 0. This is not much more expensive than memcpy, and always cheaper than strlen followed by memcpy.
The way to gain performance on string operations is to avoid copies where possible; don't worry about making the copying faster, instead try to copy less! And this holds for all string (and array) implementations, whether it be char *, std::string, std::vector<char>, or some custom string / array class.
What do I think? I think that you should do what everyone else obsessed with pre-optimization does. You should find the most obscure, unmaintainable, yet intuitively (to you anyway) high-performance way you can and do it that way. Sounds like you're onto something with your pair<char*,len> with malloc/memcpy idea there.
Whatever you do, do NOT use pre-existing, optimized wheels that make maintenence easier. Being maintainable is simply the least important thing imaginable when you're obsessed with intuitively measured performance gains. Further, as you well know, you're quite a bit smarter than those who wrote your compiler and its standard library implementation. So much so that you'd be seriously silly to trust their judgment on anything; you should really consider rewriting the entire thing yourself because it would perform better.
And ... the very LAST thing you'll want to do is use a profiler to test your intuition. That would be too scientific and methodical, and we all know that science is a bunch of bunk that's never gotten us anything; we also know that personal intuition and revelation is never, ever wrong. Why waste the time measuring with an objective tool when you've already intuitively grasped the situation's seemingliness?
Keep in mind that I'm being 100% honest in my opinion here. I don't have a sarcastic bone in my body.
Related
I have a project where I transfer data between client and server using boost.asio sockets. Once one side of the connection receives data, it converts it into a std::vector of std::strings which gets then passed on to the actualy recipient object of the data via previously defined "callback" functions. That way works fine so far, only, I am at this point using methods like atoi() and to_string to convert other data types than strings into a sendable format and back. This method is of course a bit wasteful in terms of network usage (especially when transferring bigger amounts of data than just single ints and floats). Therefore I'd like to serialize and deserialize the data. Since, effectively, any serialisation method will produce a byte array or buffer, it would be convenient for me to just use std::string instead. Is there any disadvantage to doing that? I would not understand why there should be once, since strings should be nothing more than byte arrays.
In terms of functionality, there's no real difference.
Both for performance reasons and for code clarity reasons, however, I would recommend using std::vector<uint8_t> instead, as it makes it far more clear to anyone maintaining the code that it's a sequence of bytes, not a String.
You should use std::string when you work with strings, when you work with binary blob you better work with std::vector<uint8_t>. There many benefits:
your intention is clear so code is less error prone
you would not pass your binary buffer as a string to function that expects std::string by mistake
you can override std::ostream<<() for this type to print blob in proper format (usually hex dump). Very unlikely that you would want to print binary blob as a string.
there could be more. Only benefit of std::string that I can see that you do not need to do typedef.
You're right. Strings are nothing more than byte arrays. std::string is just a convenient way to manage the buffer array that represents the string. That's it!
There's no disadvantage of using std::string unless you are working on something REALLY REALLY performance critical, like a kernel, for example... then working with std::string would have a considerable overhead. Besides that, feel free to use it.
--
An std::string behind the scenes needs to do a bunch of checks about the state of the string in order to decide if it will use the small-string optimization or not. Today pretty much all compilers implement small-string optimizations. They all use different techniques, but basically it needs to test bitflags that will tell if the string will be constructed in the stack or the heap. This overhead doesn't exist if you straight use char[]. But again, unless you are working on something REALLY critical, like a kernel, you won't notice anything and std::string is much more convenient.
Again, this is just ONE of the things that happens under the hood, just as an example to show the difference of them.
Depending on how often you're firing network messages, std::string should be fine. It's a convenience class that handles a lot of char work for you. If you have a lot of data to push though, it might be worth using a char array straight and converting it to bytes, just to minimise the extra overhead std::string has.
Edit: if someone could comment and point out why you think my answer is bad, that'd be great and help me learn too.
I am a newbee to c++ and am running into problems with my teacher using strings in my code. Though it is clear to me that I have to stop doing that in her class, I am curious as to why it is wrong. In this program the five strings I assigned were going to be reused no less than 4 to 5 times, therefore I put the text into strings. I was told to stop doing it as it is inefficient. Why? In c++ are textual strings supposed to be typed out as opposed to being stored into strings, and if so why? Below is some of the program, please tell me why it is bad.
string Bry = "berries";
string Veg = "vegetables";
string Flr = "flowers";
string AllStr;
float Tmp1, Precip;
int Tmp, FlrW, VegW, BryW, x, Selct;
bool Cont = true;
AllStr = Flr + ", " + Bry + ", " + "and " + Veg;
Answering whether using strings is inefficient is really something that very much depends on how you're using them.
First off, I would argue that you should be using C++ strings as a default - only going to raw C strings if you actually measure and find C++ strings to be too slow. The advantages (primarily for security) are just too great - it's all too easy to screw up buffer management with raw C strings. So I would disagree with your teacher that this is overly inefficient.
That said, it's important to understand the performance implications of using C++ strings. Since they are always dynamically allocated, you may end up spending a lot of time copying and reallocating buffers. This is usually not a problem; usually there are other things which take up much more time. However, if you're doing this right in the middle of a loop that's critical to your program's performance, you may need to find another method.
In short, premature optimization is usually a bad idea. Write code that is obviously correct, even if it takes ever-so-slightly longer to run. But be aware of the costs and trade-offs you're making at the same time; that way, if it turns out that C++ strings are actually slowing your program down a lot, you'll know what to change to fix that.
Yes, it's fairly inefficient, for following reasons:
When you construct a std::string object, it has to allocate a storage space for the string content (which may or may not be a separate dynamic memory allocation, depending on whether small-string optimization is in effect) and copy the literal string that is parameter of the constructor. For example, when you say: string Bry = "berries" it allocates a separate memory block (potentially from the dynamic memory), then copies "berries" to that block.
So you potentially have an extra dynamic memory allocation (costing time),
have to perform the copy (costing more time),
and end-up with 2 copies of the same string (costing space).
Using std::string::operator+ produces a new string that is the result of concatenation. So when you write several + operators in a row, you have several temporary concatenation results and a lot of unnecessary copying.
For your example, I recommend:
Using string literals unless you actually need the functionality only available in std::string.
Using std::stringstream to concatenate several strings together.
Normally, code readability is preferred over micro-optimizations of this sort, but luckily you can have both performance and readability in this case.
Your teacher is both right and wrong. S/he's right that building up strings from substrings at runtime is less CPU-efficient than simply providing the fully pre-built string in the code to start with -- but s/he's wrong in thinking that efficiency is necessarily an important factor to worry about in this case.
In a lot of cases, efficiency simply doesn't matter. At all. For example, if your code above is only going to be executed rarely (e.g. no more than once per second), then it's going to be literally impossible to measure any difference between the "most efficient version" and your not-so-efficient version. Given that, it's quite justifiable to decide that other factors (such as code readability and maintainability) are more important than maximizing efficiency.
Of course, if your program is going to be reconstructing these strings thousands or millions of times per second, then making sure your code is maximally efficient, even at the expense of readability/maintainability, is a good tradeoff to make. But I doubt that is the case here.
Your approach is almost perfect - try and declare everything only once. But if it is not used more than once - dont wast you fingers typing it :-) ie a 10 line program
The only change I would suggest is to make the strings const to help the compiler optimize you program.
If you instructor still disagrees - get a new instructor.
it is inefficient. doing that last line right would be 4-5 times faster.
at the very least you should use +=
+= means that you would avoid creating new strings with the + operator.
The instructor knows that when you do a string = string + string C++ creates a new string that is immediately destroyed.
Efficiency is probably not is good argument to not use string in school assignments but yes, if I am a teacher and the topic is not about some very high level applications, I don't want my students using string.
The real reason is string hides the low level memory management. A student coming out of college should have the basic memory management skill. Though nowadays in working environment, programmers don't deal with the memory management in most of the time but there are always situations where you need to understand what's happening under the hood to be able to reason the problem you are encountering.
With the context given, it looks like you should just be able to declare AllString as a const or string literal without all the substrings and addition. Assuming there's more to it, declaring them as literal string objects allocates memory at runtime. (And, not that there is any practical impact here, but you should be aware that stl container objects sometimes allocate a default minimum of space that is larger than the number of things initially in it, as part of its optimizations in anticipation of later modifying operations. I'm not sure if std::string does so on an declare/assign or not.) If you are only ever going to use them as literals, declaring them as a const char* or in a #define is easier on both memory and runtime performance, and you can still use them as r-values in string operations. If you are using them other ways in code you are not showing us, then its up to whether they need to ever be changed or manipulated as to whether they need to be strings or not.
If you are trying to learn coding, inefficiencies that don't matter in practice are still things you should be aware of and avoid if unnecessary. In production code, there are sometimes reasons to do something like this, but if it is not for any good reason, it's just sloppy. She's right to point it out, but what she should be doing is using that as a starting point for a conversation about the various tradeoffs involved - memory, speed, readability, maintainability, etc. If she's a teacher, she should be looking for "teaching moments" like this rather than just an opportunity to scold.
you can use string.append() ;
its better than + or +=
I have a situation where I need to process large (many GB's) amounts of data as such:
build a large string by appending many smaller (C char*) strings
trim the string
convert the string into a C++ const std::string for processing (read only)
repeat
The data in each iteration are independent.
My question is, I'd like to minimise (if possible eliminate) heap allocated memory usage, as it at the moment is my largest performance problem.
Is there a way to convert a C string (char*) into a stl C++ string (std::string) without requiring std::string to internally alloc/copy the data?
Alternatively, could I use stringstreams or something similar to re-use a large buffer?
Edit: Thanks for the answers, for clarity, I think a revised question would be:
How can I build (via multiple appends) a stl C++ string efficiently. And if performing this action in a loop, where each loop is totally independant, how can I re-use thisallocated space.
You can't actually form a std::string without copying the data. A stringstream would probably reuse the memory from pass to pass (though I think the standard is silent on whether it actually has to), but it still wouldn't avoid the copying.
A common approach to this sort of problem is to write the code which processes the data in step 3 to use a begin/end iterator pair; then it can easily process either a std::string, a vector of chars, a pair of raw pointers, etc. Unlike passing it a container type like std::string, it would no longer know or care how the memory was allocated, since it would still belong to the caller. Carrying this idea to its logical conclusion is boost::range, which adds all the overloaded constructors to still let the caller just pass a string/vector/list/any sort of container with .begin() and .end(), or separate iterators.
Having written your processing code to work on an arbitrary iterator range, you could then even write a custom iterator (not as hard as it sounds, basically just an object with some standard typedefs, and operator ++/*/=/==/!= overloaded to get a forward-only iterator) that takes care of advancing to the next fragment each time it hit the end of the one it's working on, skipping over whitespace (I assume that's what you meant by trim). That you never had to assemble the whole string contiguously at all. Whether or not this would be a win depends on how many fragments/how large of fragments you have. This is essentially what the SGI rope mentioned by Martin York is: a string where append forms a linked list of fragments instead of a contiguous buffer, which is thus suitable for much longer values.
UPDATE (since I still see occasional upvotes on this answer):
C++17 introduces another choice: std::string_view, which replaced std::string in many function signatures, is a non-owning reference to a character data. It is implicitly convertible from std::string, but can also be explicitly constructed from contiguous data owned somewhere else, avoiding the unnecessary copying std::string imposes.
Is it at all possible to use a C++ string in step 1? If you use string::reserve(size_t), you can allocate a large enough buffer to prevent multiple heap allocations while appending the smaller strings, and then you can just use that same C++ string throughout all of the remaining steps.
See this link for more information on the reserve function.
To help with really big strings SGI has the class Rope in its STL.
Non standard but may be usefull.
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/Rope.html
Apparently rope is in the next version of the standard :-)
Note the developer joke. A rope is a big string. (Ha Ha) :-)
This is a lateral thinking answer, not directly addressing the question but "thinking" around it. Might be useful, might not...
Readonly processing of std::string doesn't really require a very complex subset of std::string's features. Is there a possibility that you could do search/replace on the code that performs all the processing on std::strings so it takes some other type instead? Start with a blank class:
class lightweight_string { };
Then replace all std::string references with lightweight_string. Perform a compilation to find out exactly what operations are needed on lightweight_string for it to act as a drop-in replacement. Then you can make your implementation work however you want.
Is each iteration independent enough that you can use the same std::string for each iteration? One would hope that your std::string implementation is smart enough to re-use memory if you assign a const char * to it when it was previously used for something else.
Assigning a char * into a std::string must always at least copy the data. Memory management is one of the main reasons to use std::string, so you won't be a able to override it.
In this case, might it be better to process the char* directly, instead of assigning it to a std::string.
I use vectors, lists, strings and wstrings obsessively in my code. Are there any catch 22s involved that should make me more interested in using arrays from time to time, chars and wchars instead?
Basically, if working in an environment which supports the standard template library is there any case using the primitive types is actually better?
For 99% of the time and for 99% of Standard Library implementations, you will find that std::vectors will be fast enough, and the convenience and safety you get from using them will more than outweigh any small performance cost.
For those very rare cases when you really need bare-metal code, you can treat a vector like a C-style array:
vector <int> v( 100 );
int * p = &v[0];
p[3] = 42;
The C++ standard guarantees that vectors are allocated contiguously, so this is guaranteed to work.
Regarding strings, the convenience factor becomes almnost overwhelming, and the performance issues tend to go away. If you go beack to C-style strings, you are also going back to the use of functions like strlen(), which are inherently very inefficent themselves.
As for lists, you should think twice, and probably thrice, before using them at all, whether your own implementation or the standard. The vast majority of computing problems are better solved using a vector/array. The reason lists appear so often in the literature is to a large part because they are a convenient data structure for textbook and training course writers to use to explain pointers and dynamic allocation in one go. I speak here as an ex training course writer.
I would stick to STL classes (vectors, strings, etc). They are safer, easier to use, more productive, with less probability to have memory leaks and, AFAIK, they make some additional, run-time checking of boundaries, at least at DEBUG time (Visual C++).
Then, measure the performance. If you identify the bottleneck(s) is on STL classes, then move to C style strings and arrays usage.
From my experience, the chances to have the bottleneck on vector or string usage are very low.
One problem is the overhead when accessing elements. Even with vector and string when you access an element by index you need to first retrieve the buffer address, then add the offset (you don't do it manually, but the compiler emits such code). With raw array you already have the buffer address. This extra indirection can lead to significant overhead in certain cases and is subject to profiling when you want to improve performance.
If you don't need real time responses, stick with your approach. They are safer than chars.
You can occasionally encounter scenarios where you'll get better performance or memory usage from doing some stuff yourself (example, std::string typically has about 24 bytes of overhead, 12 bytes for the pointers in the std::string itself, and a header block on its dynamically allocated piece).
I have worked on projects where converting from std::string to const char* saved noticeable memory (10's of MB). I don't believe these projects are what you would call typical.
Oh, using STL will hurt your compile times, and at some point that may be an issue. When your project results in over a GB of object files being passed to the linker, you might want to consider how much of that is template bloat.
I've worked on several projects where the memory overhead for strings has become problematic.
It's worth considering in advance how your application needs to scale. If you need to be storing an unbounded number of strings, using const char*s into a globally managed string table can save you huge amounts of memory.
But generally, definitely use STL types unless there's a very good reason to do otherwise.
I believe the default memory allocation technique is a buffer for vectors and strings is one that allocates double the amount of memory each time the currently allocated memory gets used up. This can be wasteful. You can provide a custom allocator of course...
The other thing to consider is stack vs. heap. Staticly sized arrays and strings can sit on the stack, or at least the compiler handles the memory management for you. Newer compilers will handle dynamically sized arrays for you too if they provide the relevant C99/C++0x feature. Vectors and strings will always use the heap, and this can introduce performance issues if you have really tight constraints.
As a rule of thumb use whats already there unless it hurts your project with its speed/memory overhead... you'll probably find that for 99% of stuff the STL provided classes save you time and effort with little to no impact on your applications performance. (i.e. "avoid premature optimisation")
I have a situation where I need to process large (many GB's) amounts of data as such:
build a large string by appending many smaller (C char*) strings
trim the string
convert the string into a C++ const std::string for processing (read only)
repeat
The data in each iteration are independent.
My question is, I'd like to minimise (if possible eliminate) heap allocated memory usage, as it at the moment is my largest performance problem.
Is there a way to convert a C string (char*) into a stl C++ string (std::string) without requiring std::string to internally alloc/copy the data?
Alternatively, could I use stringstreams or something similar to re-use a large buffer?
Edit: Thanks for the answers, for clarity, I think a revised question would be:
How can I build (via multiple appends) a stl C++ string efficiently. And if performing this action in a loop, where each loop is totally independant, how can I re-use thisallocated space.
You can't actually form a std::string without copying the data. A stringstream would probably reuse the memory from pass to pass (though I think the standard is silent on whether it actually has to), but it still wouldn't avoid the copying.
A common approach to this sort of problem is to write the code which processes the data in step 3 to use a begin/end iterator pair; then it can easily process either a std::string, a vector of chars, a pair of raw pointers, etc. Unlike passing it a container type like std::string, it would no longer know or care how the memory was allocated, since it would still belong to the caller. Carrying this idea to its logical conclusion is boost::range, which adds all the overloaded constructors to still let the caller just pass a string/vector/list/any sort of container with .begin() and .end(), or separate iterators.
Having written your processing code to work on an arbitrary iterator range, you could then even write a custom iterator (not as hard as it sounds, basically just an object with some standard typedefs, and operator ++/*/=/==/!= overloaded to get a forward-only iterator) that takes care of advancing to the next fragment each time it hit the end of the one it's working on, skipping over whitespace (I assume that's what you meant by trim). That you never had to assemble the whole string contiguously at all. Whether or not this would be a win depends on how many fragments/how large of fragments you have. This is essentially what the SGI rope mentioned by Martin York is: a string where append forms a linked list of fragments instead of a contiguous buffer, which is thus suitable for much longer values.
UPDATE (since I still see occasional upvotes on this answer):
C++17 introduces another choice: std::string_view, which replaced std::string in many function signatures, is a non-owning reference to a character data. It is implicitly convertible from std::string, but can also be explicitly constructed from contiguous data owned somewhere else, avoiding the unnecessary copying std::string imposes.
Is it at all possible to use a C++ string in step 1? If you use string::reserve(size_t), you can allocate a large enough buffer to prevent multiple heap allocations while appending the smaller strings, and then you can just use that same C++ string throughout all of the remaining steps.
See this link for more information on the reserve function.
To help with really big strings SGI has the class Rope in its STL.
Non standard but may be usefull.
http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/Rope.html
Apparently rope is in the next version of the standard :-)
Note the developer joke. A rope is a big string. (Ha Ha) :-)
This is a lateral thinking answer, not directly addressing the question but "thinking" around it. Might be useful, might not...
Readonly processing of std::string doesn't really require a very complex subset of std::string's features. Is there a possibility that you could do search/replace on the code that performs all the processing on std::strings so it takes some other type instead? Start with a blank class:
class lightweight_string { };
Then replace all std::string references with lightweight_string. Perform a compilation to find out exactly what operations are needed on lightweight_string for it to act as a drop-in replacement. Then you can make your implementation work however you want.
Is each iteration independent enough that you can use the same std::string for each iteration? One would hope that your std::string implementation is smart enough to re-use memory if you assign a const char * to it when it was previously used for something else.
Assigning a char * into a std::string must always at least copy the data. Memory management is one of the main reasons to use std::string, so you won't be a able to override it.
In this case, might it be better to process the char* directly, instead of assigning it to a std::string.