Related
I am solving a problem on LeetCode, but nobody has yet been able to explain my issue.
The problem is as such:
Given an arbitrary ransom note string and another string containing letters from all the magazines, write a function that will return true if the ransom note can be constructed from the magazines ; otherwise, it will return false.
Each letter in the magazine string can only be used once in your ransom note.
Note:
You may assume that both strings contain only lowercase letters.
canConstruct("a", "b") -> false
canConstruct("aa", "ab") -> false
canConstruct("aa", "aab") -> true
My code (which takes 32ms):
class Solution {
public:
bool canConstruct(string ransomNote, string magazine) {
if(ransomNote.size() > magazine.size()) return false;
unordered_map<char, int> m;
for(int i = 0; i < magazine.size(); i++)
m[magazine[i]]++;
for(int i = 0; i < ransomNote.size(); i++)
{
if(m[ransomNote[i]] <= 0) return false;
m[ransomNote[i]]--;
}
return true;
}
};
The code (which I dont know why is faster - takes 19ms):
bool canConstruct(string ransomNote, string magazine) {
int lettersLeft = ransomNote.size(); // Remaining # of letters to be found in magazine
int arr[26] = {0};
for (int j = 0; j < ransomNote.size(); j++) {
arr[ransomNote[j] - 'a']++; // letter - 'a' gives a value of 0 - 25 for each lower case letter a-z
}
int i = 0;
while (i < magazine.size() && lettersLeft > 0) {
if (arr[magazine[i] - 'a'] > 0) {
arr[magazine[i] - 'a']--;
lettersLeft--;
}
i++;
}
if (lettersLeft == 0) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
Both of these have the same complexity and use the same structure to solve the problem, but I don't understand why one takes almost twice as much time than the other. The time to query a vector is O(1), but its the same for an unordered_map. Same story with adding an entry/key to either of them.
Please, could someone explain why the run time varies so much?
First thing to note is, although the average time to query an unordered_map is constant, the worst case is not O(1). As you can see here it actually rises to the order of O(N), N denoting the size of the container.
Secondly, as vector allocates sequential portions of memory, accessing to that memory is highly efficient and actually is constant, even in the worst-case. (i.e. simple pointer arithmetic, as opposed to computing the result of a more complex hash function) There is also the possibility of various levels of caching of sequential memory that may be involved (i.e. depending on the platform your code is running on) which may make the execution of a code using vector even faster, compared to one that is using unordered_map.
In essence, in terms of complexity, the worst-case performance of a vector is more efficient than that of unordered_map. On top of that, most hardware systems offer features such as caching which give usage of vector an even bigger edge. (i.e. lesser constant factors in O(1) operations)
Your second approach uses plain C array where accessing an element is a simple pointer dereference. But that is not the case with unordered_map. There are two points to note:
First, accessing an element is not a simple pointer dereference. It has to do other works to maintain it's internal structure. An unordered_map is actually a hash table under the hood and C++ standard indirectly mandates it to be implemented using open addressing which is a far more complex algorithm than simple array access.
Second, O(1) access is on average but not on worst case.
For these reasons no wonder that array version will work better than unordered_map even though they have same run time complexity. This is another example where two codes with same run time complexity performs differently.
You will see the benefit of unordered_map only when you have a large number of keys (oppose to fixed 26 here).
"O(1)" means "constant time" -- that is, an algorithm that is (truly) O(1) will not get slower when there is more data (in this case, when there are more items in the map or array). It does not indicate how fast the algorithm runs -- it only indicates that it won't slow down if there is more data. Seeing different times for one O(1) algorithm vs. another does not mean that they are not O(1). You should not expect that one O(1) algorithm will run exactly as fast as another. But, if there is a difference, you should see the same difference if the maps/arrays have more data in them.
I recently asked a question on Programmers regarding reasons to use manual bit manipulation of primitive types over std::bitset.
From that discussion I have concluded that the main reason is its comparatively poorer performance, although I'm not aware of any measured basis for this opinion. So next question is:
what is the performance hit, if any, likely to be incurred by using std::bitset over bit-manipulation of a primitive?
The question is intentionally broad, because after looking online I haven't been able to find anything, so I'll take what I can get. Basically I'm after a resource that provides some profiling of std::bitset vs 'pre-bitset' alternatives to the same problems on some common machine architecture using GCC, Clang and/or VC++. There is a very comprehensive paper which attempts to answer this question for bit vectors:
http://www.cs.up.ac.za/cs/vpieterse/pub/PieterseEtAl_SAICSIT2010.pdf
Unfortunately, it either predates or considered out of scope std::bitset, so it focuses on vectors/dynamic array implementations instead.
I really just want to know whether std::bitset is better than the alternatives for the use cases it is intended to solve. I already know that it is easier and clearer than bit-fiddling on an integer, but is it as fast?
Update
It's been ages since I posted this one, but:
I already know that it is easier and clearer than bit-fiddling on an
integer, but is it as fast?
If you are using bitset in a way that does actually make it clearer and cleaner than bit-fiddling, like checking for one bit at a time instead of using a bit mask, then inevitably you lose all those benefits that bitwise operations provide, like being able to check to see if 64 bits are set at one time against a mask, or using FFS instructions to quickly determine which bit is set among 64-bits.
I'm not sure that bitset incurs a penalty to use in all ways possible (ex: using its bitwise operator&), but if you use it like a fixed-size boolean array which is pretty much the way I always see people using it, then you generally lose all those benefits described above. We unfortunately can't get that level of expressiveness of just accessing one bit at a time with operator[] and have the optimizer figure out all the bitwise manipulations and FFS and FFZ and so forth going on for us, at least not since the last time I checked (otherwise bitset would be one of my favorite structures).
Now if you are going to use bitset<N> bits interchangeably with like, say, uint64_t bits[N/64] as in accessing both the same way using bitwise operations, it might be on par (haven't checked since this ancient post). But then you lose many of the benefits of using bitset in the first place.
for_each method
In the past I got into some misunderstandings, I think, when I proposed a for_each method to iterate through things like vector<bool>, deque, and bitset. The point of such a method is to utilize the internal knowledge of the container to iterate through elements more efficiently while invoking a functor, just as some associative containers offer a find method of their own instead of using std::find to do a better than linear-time search.
For example, you can iterate through all set bits of a vector<bool> or bitset if you had internal knowledge of these containers by checking for 64 elements at a time using a 64-bit mask when 64 contiguous indices are occupied, and likewise use FFS instructions when that's not the case.
But an iterator design having to do this type of scalar logic in operator++ would inevitably have to do something considerably more expensive, just by the nature in which iterators are designed in these peculiar cases. bitset lacks iterators outright and that often makes people wanting to use it to avoid dealing with bitwise logic to use operator[] to check each bit individually in a sequential loop that just wants to find out which bits are set. That too is not nearly as efficient as what a for_each method implementation could do.
Double/Nested Iterators
Another alternative to the for_each container-specific method proposed above would be to use double/nested iterators: that is, an outer iterator which points to a sub-range of a different type of iterator. Client code example:
for (auto outer_it = bitset.nbegin(); outer_it != bitset.nend(); ++outer_it)
{
for (auto inner_it = outer_it->first; inner_it != outer_it->last; ++inner_it)
// do something with *inner_it (bit index)
}
While not conforming to the flat type of iterator design available now in standard containers, this can allow some very interesting optimizations. As an example, imagine a case like this:
bitset<64> bits = 0x1fbf; // 0b1111110111111;
In that case, the outer iterator can, with just a few bitwise iterations ((FFZ/or/complement), deduce that the first range of bits to process would be bits [0, 6), at which point we can iterate through that sub-range very cheaply through the inner/nested iterator (it would just increment an integer, making ++inner_it equivalent to just ++int). Then when we increment the outer iterator, it can then very quickly, and again with a few bitwise instructions, determine that the next range would be [7, 13). After we iterate through that sub-range, we're done. Take this as another example:
bitset<16> bits = 0xffff;
In such a case, the first and last sub-range would be [0, 16), and the bitset could determine that with a single bitwise instruction at which point we can iterate through all set bits and then we're done.
This type of nested iterator design would map particularly well to vector<bool>, deque, and bitset as well as other data structures people might create like unrolled lists.
I say that in a way that goes beyond just armchair speculation, since I have a set of data structures which resemble the likes of deque which are actually on par with sequential iteration of vector (still noticeably slower for random-access, especially if we're just storing a bunch of primitives and doing trivial processing). However, to achieve the comparable times to vector for sequential iteration, I had to use these types of techniques (for_each method and double/nested iterators) to reduce the amount of processing and branching going on in each iteration. I could not rival the times otherwise using just the flat iterator design and/or operator[]. And I'm certainly not smarter than the standard library implementers but came up with a deque-like container which can be sequentially iterated much faster, and that strongly suggests to me that it's an issue with the standard interface design of iterators in this case which come with some overhead in these peculiar cases that the optimizer cannot optimize away.
Old Answer
I'm one of those who would give you a similar performance answer, but I'll try to give you something a bit more in-depth than "just because". It is something I came across through actual profiling and timing, not merely distrust and paranoia.
One of the biggest problems with bitset and vector<bool> is that their interface design is "too convenient" if you want to use them like an array of booleans. Optimizers are great at obliterating all that structure you establish to provide safety, reduce maintenance cost, make changes less intrusive, etc. They do an especially fine job with selecting instructions and allocating the minimal number of registers to make such code run as fast as the not-so-safe, not-so-easy-to-maintain/change alternatives.
The part that makes the bitset interface "too convenient" at the cost of efficiency is the random-access operator[] as well as the iterator design for vector<bool>. When you access one of these at index n, the code has to first figure out which byte the nth bit belongs to, and then the sub-index to the bit within that. That first phase typically involves a division/rshifts against an lvalue along with modulo/bitwise and which is more costly than the actual bit operation you're trying to perform.
The iterator design for vector<bool> faces a similar awkward dilemma where it either has to branch into different code every 8+ times you iterate through it or pay that kind of indexing cost described above. If the former is done, it makes the logic asymmetrical across iterations, and iterator designs tend to take a performance hit in those rare cases. To exemplify, if vector had a for_each method of its own, you could iterate through, say, a range of 64 elements at once by just masking the bits against a 64-bit mask for vector<bool> if all the bits are set without checking each bit individually. It could even use FFS to figure out the range all at once. An iterator design would tend to inevitably have to do it in a scalar fashion or store more state which has to be redundantly checked every iteration.
For random access, optimizers can't seem to optimize away this indexing overhead to figure out which byte and relative bit to access (perhaps a bit too runtime-dependent) when it's not needed, and you tend to see significant performance gains with that more manual code processing bits sequentially with advanced knowledge of which byte/word/dword/qword it's working on. It's somewhat of an unfair comparison, but the difficulty with std::bitset is that there's no way to make a fair comparison in such cases where the code knows what byte it wants to access in advance, and more often than not, you tend to have this info in advance. It's an apples to orange comparison in the random-access case, but you often only need oranges.
Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if the interface design involved a bitset where operator[] returned a proxy, requiring a two-index access pattern to use. For example, in such a case, you would access bit 8 by writing bitset[0][6] = true; bitset[0][7] = true; with a template parameter to indicate the size of the proxy (64-bits, e.g.). A good optimizer may be able to take such a design and make it rival the manual, old school kind of way of doing the bit manipulation by hand by translating that into: bitset |= 0x60;
Another design that might help is if bitsets provided a for_each_bit kind of method, passing a bit proxy to the functor you provide. That might actually be able to rival the manual method.
std::deque has a similar interface problem. Its performance shouldn't be that much slower than std::vector for sequential access. Yet unfortunately we access it sequentially using operator[] which is designed for random access or through an iterator, and the internal rep of deques simply don't map very efficiently to an iterator-based design. If deque provided a for_each kind of method of its own, then there it could potentially start to get a lot closer to std::vector's sequential access performance. These are some of the rare cases where that Sequence interface design comes with some efficiency overhead that optimizers often can't obliterate. Often good optimizers can make convenience come free of runtime cost in a production build, but unfortunately not in all cases.
Sorry!
Also sorry, in retrospect I wandered a bit with this post talking about vector<bool> and deque in addition to bitset. It's because we had a codebase where the use of these three, and particularly iterating through them or using them with random-access, were often hotspots.
Apples to Oranges
As emphasized in the old answer, comparing straightforward usage of bitset to primitive types with low-level bitwise logic is comparing apples to oranges. It's not like bitset is implemented very inefficiently for what it does. If you genuinely need to access a bunch of bits with a random access pattern which, for some reason or other, needs to check and set just one bit a time, then it might be ideally implemented for such a purpose. But my point is that almost all use cases I've encountered didn't require that, and when it's not required, the old school way involving bitwise operations tends to be significantly more efficient.
Did a short test profiling std::bitset vs bool arrays for sequential and random access - you can too:
#include <iostream>
#include <bitset>
#include <cstdlib> // rand
#include <ctime> // timer
inline unsigned long get_time_in_ms()
{
return (unsigned long)((double(clock()) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC) * 1000);
}
void one_sec_delay()
{
unsigned long end_time = get_time_in_ms() + 1000;
while(get_time_in_ms() < end_time)
{
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
srand(get_time_in_ms());
using namespace std;
bitset<5000000> bits;
bool *bools = new bool[5000000];
unsigned long current_time, difference1, difference2;
double total;
one_sec_delay();
total = 0;
current_time = get_time_in_ms();
for (unsigned int num = 0; num != 200000000; ++num)
{
bools[rand() % 5000000] = rand() % 2;
}
difference1 = get_time_in_ms() - current_time;
current_time = get_time_in_ms();
for (unsigned int num2 = 0; num2 != 100; ++num2)
{
for (unsigned int num = 0; num != 5000000; ++num)
{
total += bools[num];
}
}
difference2 = get_time_in_ms() - current_time;
cout << "Bool:" << endl << "sum total = " << total << ", random access time = " << difference1 << ", sequential access time = " << difference2 << endl << endl;
one_sec_delay();
total = 0;
current_time = get_time_in_ms();
for (unsigned int num = 0; num != 200000000; ++num)
{
bits[rand() % 5000000] = rand() % 2;
}
difference1 = get_time_in_ms() - current_time;
current_time = get_time_in_ms();
for (unsigned int num2 = 0; num2 != 100; ++num2)
{
for (unsigned int num = 0; num != 5000000; ++num)
{
total += bits[num];
}
}
difference2 = get_time_in_ms() - current_time;
cout << "Bitset:" << endl << "sum total = " << total << ", random access time = " << difference1 << ", sequential access time = " << difference2 << endl << endl;
delete [] bools;
cin.get();
return 0;
}
Please note: the outputting of the sum total is necessary so the compiler doesn't optimise out the for loop - which some do if the result of the loop isn't used.
Under GCC x64 with the following flags: -O2;-Wall;-march=native;-fomit-frame-pointer;-std=c++11;
I get the following results:
Bool array:
random access time = 4695, sequential access time = 390
Bitset:
random access time = 5382, sequential access time = 749
Not a great answer here, but rather a related anecdote:
A few years ago I was working on real-time software and we ran into scheduling problems. There was a module which was way over time-budget, and this was very surprising because the module was only responsible for some mapping and packing/unpacking of bits into/from 32-bit words.
It turned out that the module was using std::bitset. We replaced this with manual operations and the execution time decreased from 3 milliseconds to 25 microseconds. That was a significant performance issue and a significant improvement.
The point is, the performance issues caused by this class can be very real.
In addition to what the other answers said about the performance of access, there may also be a significant space overhead: Typical bitset<> implementations simply use the longest integer type to back their bits. Thus, the following code
#include <bitset>
#include <stdio.h>
struct Bitfield {
unsigned char a:1, b:1, c:1, d:1, e:1, f:1, g:1, h:1;
};
struct Bitset {
std::bitset<8> bits;
};
int main() {
printf("sizeof(Bitfield) = %zd\n", sizeof(Bitfield));
printf("sizeof(Bitset) = %zd\n", sizeof(Bitset));
printf("sizeof(std::bitset<1>) = %zd\n", sizeof(std::bitset<1>));
}
produces the following output on my machine:
sizeof(Bitfield) = 1
sizeof(Bitset) = 8
sizeof(std::bitset<1>) = 8
As you see, my compiler allocates a whopping 64 bits to store a single one, with the bitfield approach, I only need to round up to eight bits.
This factor eight in space usage can become important if you have a lot of small bitsets.
Rhetorical question: Why std::bitset is written in that inefficacy way?
Answer: It is not.
Another rhetorical question: What is difference between:
std::bitset<128> a = src;
a[i] = true;
a = a << 64;
and
std::bitset<129> a = src;
a[i] = true;
a = a << 63;
Answer: 50 times difference in performance http://quick-bench.com/iRokweQ6JqF2Il-T-9JSmR0bdyw
You need be very careful what you ask for, bitset support lot of things but each have it own cost. With correct handling you will have exactly same behavior as raw code:
void f(std::bitset<64>& b, int i)
{
b |= 1L << i;
b = b << 15;
}
void f(unsigned long& b, int i)
{
b |= 1L << i;
b = b << 15;
}
Both generate same assembly: https://godbolt.org/g/PUUUyd (64 bit GCC)
Another thing is that bitset is more portable but this have cost too:
void h(std::bitset<64>& b, unsigned i)
{
b = b << i;
}
void h(unsigned long& b, unsigned i)
{
b = b << i;
}
If i > 64 then bit set will be zero and in case of unsigned we have UB.
void h(std::bitset<64>& b, unsigned i)
{
if (i < 64) b = b << i;
}
void h(unsigned long& b, unsigned i)
{
if (i < 64) b = b << i;
}
With check preventing UB both generate same code.
Another place is set and [], first one is safe and mean you will never get UB but this will cost you a branch. [] have UB if you use wrong value but is fast as using var |= 1L<< i;. Of corse if std::bitset do not need have more bits than biggest int available on system because other wise you need split value to get correct element in internal table. This mean for std::bitset<N> size N is very important for performance. If is bigger or smaller than optimal one you will pay cost of it.
Overall I find that best way is use something like that:
constexpr size_t minBitSet = sizeof(std::bitset<1>)*8;
template<size_t N>
using fasterBitSet = std::bitset<minBitSet * ((N + minBitSet - 1) / minBitSet)>;
This will remove cost of trimming exceeding bits: http://quick-bench.com/Di1tE0vyhFNQERvucAHLaOgucAY
Solving the following exercise:
Write three different versions of a program to print the elements of
ia. One version should use a range for to manage the iteration, the
other two should use an ordinary for loop in one case using subscripts
and in the other using pointers. In all three programs write all the
types directly. That is, do not use a type alias, auto, or decltype to
simplify the code.[C++ Primer]
a question came up: Which of these methods for accessing array is optimized in terms of speed and why?
My Solutions:
Foreach Loop:
int ia[3][4]={{1,2,3,4},{5,6,7,8},{9,10,11,12}};
for (int (&i)[4]:ia) //1st method using for each loop
for(int j:i)
cout<<j<<" ";
Nested for loops:
for (int i=0;i<3;i++) //2nd method normal for loop
for(int j=0;j<4;j++)
cout<<ia[i][j]<<" ";
Using pointers:
int (*i)[4]=ia;
for(int t=0;t<3;i++,t++){ //3rd method. using pointers.
for(int x=0;x<4;x++)
cout<<(*i)[x]<<" ";
Using auto:
for(auto &i:ia) //4th one using auto but I think it is similar to 1st.
for(auto j:i)
cout<<j<<" ";
Benchmark result using clock()
1st: 3.6 (6,4,4,3,2,3)
2nd: 3.3 (6,3,4,2,3,2)
3rd: 3.1 (4,2,4,2,3,4)
4th: 3.6 (4,2,4,5,3,4)
Simulating each method 1000 times:
1st: 2.29375 2nd: 2.17592 3rd: 2.14383 4th: 2.33333
Process returned 0 (0x0) execution time : 13.568 s
Compiler used:MingW 3.2 c++11 flag enabled. IDE:CodeBlocks
I have some observations and points to make and I hope you get your answer from this.
The fourth version, as you mention yourself, is basically the same as the first version. auto can be thought of as only a coding shortcut (this is of course not strictly true, as using auto can result in getting different types than you'd expected and therefore result in different runtime behavior. But most of the time this is true.)
Your solution using pointers is probably not what people mean when they say that they are using pointers! One solution might be something like this:
for (int i = 0, *p = &(ia[0][0]); i < 3 * 4; ++i, ++p)
cout << *p << " ";
or to use two nested loops (which is probably pointless):
for (int i = 0, *p = &(ia[0][0]); i < 3; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < 4; ++j, ++p)
cout << *p << " ";
from now on, I'm assuming this is the pointer solution you've written.
In such a trivial case as this, the part that will absolutely dominate your running time is the cout. The time spent in bookkeeping and checks for the loop(s) will be completely negligible comparing to doing I/O. Therefore, it won't matter which loop technique you use.
Modern compilers are great at optimizing such ubiquitous tasks and access patterns (iterating over an array.) Therefore, chances are that all these methods will generate exactly the same code (with the possible exception of the pointer version, which I will talk about later.)
The performance of most codes like this will depend more on the memory access pattern rather than how exactly the compiler generates the assembly branch instructions (and the rest of the operations.) This is because if a required memory block is not in the CPU cache, it's going to take a time roughly equivalent of several hundred CPU cycles (this is just a ballpark number) to fetch those bytes from RAM. Since all the examples access memory in exactly the same order, their behavior in respect to memory and cache will be the same and will have roughly the same running time.
As a side note, the way these examples access memory is the best way for it to be accessed! Linear, consecutive and from start to finish. Again, there are problems with the cout in there, which can be a very complicated operation and even call into the OS on every invocation, which might result, among other things, an almost complete deletion (eviction) of everything useful from the CPU cache.
On 32-bit systems and programs, the size of an int and a pointer are usually equal (both are 32 bits!) Which means that it doesn't matter much whether you pass around and use index values or pointers into arrays. On 64-bit systems however, a pointer is 64 bits but an int will still usually be 32 bits. This suggests that it is usually better to use indexes into arrays instead of pointers (or even iterators) on 64-bit systems and programs.
In this particular example, this is not significant at all though.
Your code is very specific and simple, but the general case, it is almost always better to give as much information to the compiler about your code as possible. This means that you must use the narrowest, most specific device available to you to do a job. This in turn means that a generic for loop (i.e. for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)) is worse than a range-based for loop (i.e. for (auto i : v)) for the compiler, because in the latter case the compiler simply knows that you are going to iterate over the whole range and not go outside of it or break out of the loop or something, while in the generic for loop case, specially if your code is more complex, the compiler cannot be sure of this and has to insert extra checks and tests to make sure the code executes as the C++ standard says it should.
In many (most?) cases, although you might think performance matters, it does not. And most of the time you rewrite something to gain performance, you don't gain much. And most of the time the performance gain you get is not worth the loss in readability and maintainability that you sustain. So, design your code and data structures right (and keep performance in mind) but avoid this kind of "micro-optimization" because it's almost always not worth it and even harms the quality of the code too.
Generally, performance in terms of speed is very hard to reason about. Ideally you have to measure the time with real data on real hardware in real working conditions using sound scientific measuring and statistical methods. Even measuring the time it takes a piece of code to run is not at all trivial. Measuring performance is hard, and reasoning about it is harder, but these days it is the only way of recognizing bottlenecks and optimizing the code.
I hope I have answered your question.
EDIT: I wrote a very simple benchmark for what you are trying to do. The code is here. It's written for Windows and should be compilable on Visual Studio 2012 (because of the range-based for loops.) And here are the timing results:
Simple iteration (nested loops): min:0.002140, avg:0.002160, max:0.002739
Simple iteration (one loop): min:0.002140, avg:0.002160, max:0.002625
Pointer iteration (one loop): min:0.002140, avg:0.002160, max:0.003149
Range-based for (nested loops): min:0.002140, avg:0.002159, max:0.002862
Range(const ref)(nested loops): min:0.002140, avg:0.002155, max:0.002906
The relevant numbers are the "min" times (over 2000 runs of each test, for 1000x1000 arrays.) As you see, there is absolutely no difference between the tests. Note that you should turn on compiler optimizations or test 2 will be a disaster and cases 4 and 5 will be a little worse than 1 and 3.
And here are the code for the tests:
// 1. Simple iteration (nested loops)
unsigned sum = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < gc_Rows; ++i)
for (unsigned j = 0; j < gc_Cols; ++j)
sum += g_Data[i][j];
// 2. Simple iteration (one loop)
unsigned sum = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < gc_Rows * gc_Cols; ++i)
sum += g_Data[i / gc_Cols][i % gc_Cols];
// 3. Pointer iteration (one loop)
unsigned sum = 0;
unsigned * p = &(g_Data[0][0]);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < gc_Rows * gc_Cols; ++i)
sum += *p++;
// 4. Range-based for (nested loops)
unsigned sum = 0;
for (auto & i : g_Data)
for (auto j : i)
sum += j;
// 5. Range(const ref)(nested loops)
unsigned sum = 0;
for (auto const & i : g_Data)
for (auto const & j : i)
sum += j;
It has many factors affecting it:
It depends on the compiler
It depends on the compiler flags used
It depends on the computer used
There is only one way to know the exact answer: measuring the time used when dealing with huge arrays (maybe from a random number generator) which is the same method you have already done except that the array size should be at least 1000x1000.
I searched around and could not find the performance time specifications for bitset::count(). Does anybody know what it is (O(n) or better) and where to find it?
EDIT By STL I refer only to the Standard Template Library.
I read this file (C:\cygwin\lib\gcc\i686-pc-cygwin\3.4.4\include\c++\bitset) on my computer.
See these
/// Returns the number of bits which are set.
size_t
count() const { return this->_M_do_count(); }
size_t
_M_do_count() const
{
size_t __result = 0;
for (size_t __i = 0; __i < _Nw; __i++)
__result += __builtin_popcountl(_M_w[__i]);
return __result;
}
BTW, this is where _Nw is specified:
template<size_t _Nw>
struct _Base_bitset
Thus it's O(n) in gcc implementation. We conclude the specification doesn't require it better than O(n). And nobody in their right mind will implement it in a way worse than that. We can then safely assume that it's at worst O(n). Possibly better but you can never count on that.
I can't be sure what you really mean by "STL" here, due to a prevailing misuse of the term in the C++ community.
The C++ Standard (2003) makes no mandate for the performance of std::bitset::count() (or, in fact, any members of std::bitset as far as I can see).
I can't find any reference suggesting a mandate for the performance of STL's bitset::count() either.
I think any sane implementation will provide this in constant (or at worst linear) time, though. However, this is merely a feeling. Check yours to find out what you'll actually get.
"SGI's reference implementation runs
in linear time with respect to the
number of bytes needed to store the
bits. It does this by creating a
static array of 256 integers. The
value stored at ith index in the array
is the number of bits set in the value
i."
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/general/12486/
I'm not sure you're going to find a specification for that, since the STL doesn't typically require a certain level of performance. I've seen hints that it's "fast", around 1 cycle per bit in the set's size. You can of course read your particular implementation's code to find out what to expect.
The Algorithm that we follow is to count all the bits that are set to 1.
Now if we want to count through that bitset for a number n, we would go through log(n)+1 digits.
For example: for the number 13, we get 1101 as the bitset.
Natural log of 13 = 2.564 (approximately) 3
Number of bits = 3+1 = 4
For any number n(decimal) we loop log(n)+1 times.
Another approach would be the following:
int count_set_bits_fast(int n) {
int count = 0;
while (n > 0) {
n=(n&(n-1));
count++
}
return count;
}
If you analyse the functional line n=(n&(n-1)); you shall find that it essentially reduces the number of bits from right to left.
The Order would therefore be number of total set bits.
For example: 13 = 1101
1101&1100 = 1100
1100&1011 = 1000
1000&0111 = 0
O(number of set bits), O(Log(n)+1) Worst case
I have a class containing a number of double values. This is stored in a vector where the indices for the classes are important (they are referenced from elsewhere). The class looks something like this:
Vector of classes
class A
{
double count;
double val;
double sumA;
double sumB;
vector<double> sumVectorC;
vector<double> sumVectorD;
}
vector<A> classes(10000);
The code that needs to run as fast as possible is something like this:
vector<double> result(classes.size());
for(int i = 0; i < classes.size(); i++)
{
result[i] += classes[i].sumA;
vector<double>::iterator it = find(classes[i].sumVectorC.begin(), classes[i].sumVectorC.end(), testval);
if(it != classes[i].sumVectorC.end())
result[i] += *it;
}
The alternative is instead of one giant loop, split the computation into two separate loops such as:
for(int i = 0; i < classes.size(); i++)
{
result[i] += classes[i].sumA;
}
for(int i = 0; i < classes.size(); i++)
{
vector<double>::iterator it = find(classes[i].sumVectorC.begin(), classes[i].sumVectorC.end(), testval);
if(it != classes[i].sumVectorC.end())
result[i] += *it;
}
or to store each member of the class in a vector like so:
Class of vectors
vector<double> classCounts;
vector<double> classVal;
...
vector<vector<double> > classSumVectorC;
...
and then operate as:
for(int i = 0; i < classes.size(); i++)
{
result[i] += classCounts[i];
...
}
Which way would usually be faster (across x86/x64 platforms and compilers)? Are look-ahead and cache lines are the most important things to think about here?
Update
The reason I'm doing a linear search (i.e. find) here and not a hash map or binary search is because the sumVectors are very short, around 4 or 5 elements. Profiling showed a hash map was slower and a binary search was slightly slower.
As the implementation of both variants seems easy enough I would build both versions and profile them to find the fastest one.
Empirical data usually beats speculation.
As a side issue: Currently, the find() in your innermost loop does a linear scan through all elements of classes[i].sumVectorC until it finds a matching value. If that vector contains many values, and you have no reason to believe that testVal appears near the start of the vector, then this will be slow -- consider using a container type with faster lookup instead (e.g. std::map or one of the nonstandard but commonly implemented hash_map types).
As a general guideline: consider algorithmic improvements before low-level implementation optimisation.
As lothar says, you really should test it out. But to answer your last question, yes, cache misses will be a major concern here.
Also, it seems that your first implementation would run into load-hit-store stalls as coded, but I'm not sure how much of a problem that is on x86 (it's a big problem on XBox 360 and PS3).
It looks like optimizing the find() would be a big win (profile to know for sure). Depending on the various sizes, in addition to replacing the vector with another container, you could try sorting sumVectorC and using a binary search in the form of lower_bound. This will turn your linear search O(n) into O(log n).
if you can guarrantee that std::numeric_limits<double>::infinity is not a possible value, ensuring that the arrays are sorted with a dummy infinite entry at the end and then manually coding the find so that the loop condition is a single test:
array[i]<test_val
and then an equality test.
then you know that the average number of looked at values is (size()+1)/2 in the not found case. Of course if the search array changes very frequently then the issue of keeping it sorted is an issue.
of course you don't tell us much about sumVectorC or the rest of A for that matter, so it is hard to ascertain and give really good advice. For example if sumVectorC is never updates then it is probably possible to find an EXTREMELY cheap hash (eg cast ULL and bit extraction) that is perfect on the sumVectorC values that fits into double[8]. Then the overhead is bit extract and 1 comparison versus 3 or 6
Also if you have a bound on sumVectorC.size() that is reasonable(you mentioned 4 or 5 so this assumption seems not bad) you could consider using an aggregated array or even just a boost::array<double> and add your own dynamic size eg :
class AggregatedArray : public boost::array<double>{
size_t _size;
size_t size() const {
return size;
}
....
push_back(..){...
pop(){...
resize(...){...
};
this gets rid of the extra cache line access to the allocated array data for sumVectorC.
In the case of sumVectorC very infrequently updating if finding a perfect hash (out of your class of hash algoithhms)is relatively cheap then you can incur that with profit when sumVectorC changes. These small lookups can be problematic and algorithmic complexity is frequently irrelevant - it is the constants that dominate. It is an engineering problem and not a theoretical one.
Unless you can guarantee that the small maps are in cache you can be almost be guaranteed that using a std::map will yield approximately 130% worse performance as pretty much each node in the tree will be in a separate cache line
Thus instead of accessing (4 times 1+1 times 2)/5 = 1.2 cache lines per search (the first 4 are in first cacheline, the 5th in the second cacheline, you will access (1 + 2 times 2 + 2 times 3) = 9/5) + 1 for the tree itself = 2.8 cachelines per search (the 1 being 1 node at the root, 2 nodes being children of the root, and the last 2 being grandchildren of the root, plus the tree itself)
So I would predict using a std::map to take 2.8/1.2 = 233% as long for a sumVectorC having 5 entries
This what I meant when I said: "It is an engineering problem and not a theoretical one."