C++Talk.NET C++ language newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors          C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language (comp.lang.c++) View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Michael Aramini Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:19 am    Post subject: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors I need to represent 1D and 2D arrays of numeric or bool types in a C++ program. The sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in the sense that they are not known at compile time, so I'd like to use an STL container class template such as valarray or vector to represent 1D arrays, and valarrays or vectors of valarrays or vectors to represent 2D arrays. As I said the sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in that they are determined at run time, but on the other hand I don't anticipate the need to continually resize a given array during a given call to the routine in which it is declared. The thing that's more important to my application is speed. Is there a significant different between the element access speeds of valarrays vs. vectors? For 1D arrays, the choices are: valarray<type> vs. vector<type> For 2D arrays, the choices are: valarray< valarray vs. valarray< vector vs. vector< valarray vs. vector < vector In my application, type is will be a scalar type such as bool, double, int, or size_t. The code is initially being targeted for Linux, but it may also be ported to another UNIX such as IRIX, or perhaps even Windows, so I'd like to keep things portable by using an STL container rather than one from some operating system specific template library. -Michael Back to top Cy Edmunds Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:01 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors "Michael Aramini" <M.Aramini (AT) Verizon (DOT) net> wrote Quote: I need to represent 1D and 2D arrays of numeric or bool types in a C++ program. The sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in the sense that they are not known at compile time, so I'd like to use an STL container class template such as valarray or vector to represent 1D arrays, and valarrays or vectors of valarrays or vectors to represent 2D arrays. As I said the sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in that they are determined at run time, but on the other hand I don't anticipate the need to continually resize a given array during a given call to the routine in which it is declared. The thing that's more important to my application is speed. Is there a significant different between the element access speeds of valarrays vs. vectors? For 1D arrays, the choices are: valarray<type> vs. vector<type For 2D arrays, the choices are: valarray< valarray vs. valarray< vector vs. vector< valarray vs. vector < vector In my application, type is will be a scalar type such as bool, double, int, or size_t. The code is initially being targeted for Linux, but it may also be ported to another UNIX such as IRIX, or perhaps even Windows, so I'd like to keep things portable by using an STL container rather than one from some operating system specific template library. -Michael I'm not aware of any serious access speed difference between valarray and vector. However, I would say that overall valarray is not as well thought out a design as vector. For 2D arrays you have other options too. For instance you can allocate a one dimensional array and compute the index from the row and column indices. Whether that's faster or not depends on the algorithms you intend to apply. For copying a matrix, for instance, it will almost certainly be faster. I recommend you search around for some numeric libraries before writing your own 2D array type. This has been done before. -- Cy http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/ Back to top E. Robert Tisdale Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:12 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Michael Aramini wrote: Quote: I need to represent 1D and 2D arrays of numeric or bool types in a C++ program. The sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in the sense that they are not known at compile time, so I'd like to use an STL container class template such as valarray or vector to represent 1D arrays, and valarrays or vectors of valarrays or vectors to represent 2D arrays. As I said the sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in that they are determined at run time, but on the other hand I don't anticipate the need to continually resize a given array during a given call to the routine in which it is declared. The thing that's more important to my application is speed. Standard vector class templates are for *flexible* arrays of any type. Each of the vectors in a vector of vectors could have different lengths. They will only cause you trouble if you really need *rigid*, *rectangular* arrays of numbers. In which case, standard valarray class templates are a better choice. Quote: Is there a significant different between the element access speeds of valarrays vs. vectors? It depends upon the implementation but valarrays were designed for the kind of optimizations that are required for high performance numerical applications. Quote: For 1D arrays, the choices are: valarray<type> vs. vector<type For 2D arrays, the choices are: valarray< valarray vs. valarray< vector vs. vector< valarray vs. vector < vector No. Use valarray and standard slice templates to "view" it as a matrix [tensor]. See Bjarne Stroustrup, "The C++ Programming Language: Third Edition", Chapter 22 Numerics, Section 4 Vector Arithmetic, pages 662-79. Quote: In my application, type is will be a scalar type such as bool, double, int, or size_t. The code is initially being targeted for Linux, but it may also be ported to another UNIX such as IRIX, or perhaps even Windows, so I'd like to keep things portable by using an STL container rather than one from some operating system specific template library. Take a look at The C++ Scalar, Vector, Matrix and Tensor class Library (SVMTL) http://www.netwood.net/~edwin/svmtl/ and The Object-Oriented Numerics Page http://www.oonumerics.org/oon/ Probably the best approach is to implement vector and matrix classes based upon standard valarray templates as Bjarne suggests. Back to top Kevin Goodsell Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Michael Aramini wrote: Quote: I need to represent 1D and 2D arrays of numeric or bool types in a C++ program. The sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in the sense that they are not known at compile time, so I'd like to use an STL container class template such as valarray or vector to represent 1D arrays, and valarrays or vectors of valarrays or vectors to represent 2D arrays. As I said the sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in that they are determined at run time, but on the other hand I don't anticipate the need to continually resize a given array during a given call to the routine in which it is declared. The thing that's more important to my application is speed. Is there a significant different between the element access speeds of valarrays vs. vectors? In general, use vector for your everyday array-type data structure. valarrays are intended for mathematical operations (they are more similar to mathematical vectors). vector access is extremely fast, on par with built-in arrays. (In practice vectors are implemented as dynamic arrays - this is not an explicit requirement, but it's the only practical choice.) -Kevin -- My email address is valid, but changes periodically. To contact me please use the address from a recent posting. Back to top foo Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:22 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Michael Aramini <M.Aramini (AT) Verizon (DOT) net> wrote Quote: I need to represent 1D and 2D arrays of numeric or bool types in a C++ program. The sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in the sense that they are not known at compile time, so I'd like to use an STL container class template such as valarray or vector to represent 1D arrays, and valarrays or vectors of valarrays or vectors to represent 2D arrays. As I said the sizes of the arrays in my intended application are dynamic in that they are determined at run time, but on the other hand I don't anticipate the need to continually resize a given array during a given call to the routine in which it is declared. The thing that's more important to my application is speed. Is there a significant different between the element access speeds of valarrays vs. vectors? For 1D arrays, the choices are: valarray<type> vs. vector<type For 2D arrays, the choices are: valarray< valarray vs. valarray< vector vs. vector< valarray vs. vector < vector In my application, type is will be a scalar type such as bool, double, int, or size_t. The code is initially being targeted for Linux, but it may also be ported to another UNIX such as IRIX, or perhaps even Windows, so I'd like to keep things portable by using an STL container rather than one from some operating system specific template library. -Michael You can use the following class for a two dimensional array. template < class T, int ROW_T = 0, int COL_T = 0 > class dynamic_2d_array { public: dynamic_2d_array(int row, int col):m_row(row),m_col(col), m_data((row!=0&&col!=0)?new T[row*col]:NULL){} dynamic_2d_array():m_row(ROW_T),m_col(COL_T), m_data(new T[ROW_T*COL_T]) {if (!COL_T || !ROW_T) {int x[ROW_T] = {{ROW_T}};int y[COL_T] = {{x[0]}};}} ~dynamic_2d_array(){if(m_data) delete []m_data;} T* operator[](int i) {return (m_data + (m_col*i));} T const*const operator[](int i) const {return (m_data + (m_col*i));} private: const int m_row; const int m_col; T* m_data; }; If you look at the following link, there's code for test performance on the above class and other methods. http://www.axter.com/faq/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=60&FORUM_ID=4&CAT_ID=9 The above link has code for performing test on C-Style Static 2D array, C-Syle Dynamic 2D array, vector<vector , and the above dynamic_2d_array class. In the test, the dynamic_2d_array class out performmed the vector method when accessing the data via operator[]. However, the vector method out performmed all the other methods when accessing the data via iterators. Back to top {AGUT2} {H}-IWIK Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:42 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Quote: I'm not aware of any serious access speed difference between valarray and vector. However, I would say that overall valarray is not as well thought out a design as vector. Lo cy :) Alex -- Reply to:alex an.ti livingstone sp@am btinternet.com cutting the usual... Back to top Cy Edmunds Guest Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:20 pm    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors "{AGUT2} {H}-IWIK" <alexan.tilivingstonesp (AT) ambtinternet (DOT) com> wrote in message news:opruu3pwdbp508op (AT) mercury (DOT) nildram.net... Quote: I'm not aware of any serious access speed difference between valarray and vector. However, I would say that overall valarray is not as well thought out a design as vector. Lo cy :) Alex -- Reply to:alex an.ti livingstone sp@am btinternet.com cutting the usual... Ya never know when the gamers are gonna sneak in... lol hi -- Cycho{HHR} http://home.rochester.rr.com/cyhome/ Back to top mjm Guest Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:47 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Blitz++ by Todd Veldhuizen seems to be the most highly optimized C++ array library around: http://www.oonumerics.org However there is a learning curve involved, compile times are very slow (template meta prgramming) and you need a very capable C++ compiler (KAI, SGI and maybe now also Intel). If speed is really that important but C++ is not mandatory think about Fortran. Back to top Jerry Coffin Guest Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 6:59 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors In article <3F540A80.3080208 (AT) jpl (DOT) nasa.gov>, [email]E.Robert.Tisdale (AT) jpl (DOT) nasa.gov[/email] says... [ ... ] Quote: Standard vector class templates are for *flexible* arrays of any type. Each of the vectors in a vector of vectors could have different lengths. They will only cause you trouble if you really need *rigid*, *rectangular* arrays of numbers. In which case, standard valarray class templates are a better choice. This may be true, but I've yet to see real evidence of it. [ ... ] Quote: It depends upon the implementation but valarrays were designed for the kind of optimizations that are required for high performance numerical applications. Yes and no -- valarrays were really designed to work well with vector machines (which ARE used primarily for high-performance numerical applications). Unfortunately, they generally do NOT work particularly well with most current architectures. The basic difference is simple: on a vector machine, you generally want to apply a single operation to an entire array at a time, then apply the next operation to the entire array, and so on until you've applied all the operations you need to the entire array. The basic definition of a vector machine is that it can apply a single operation to a number of elements in parallel. The prototypical vector machine is the Cray, which has 3 sets of 64 registers each -- it can be loading one set of 64 registers, applying a single operation to another set of 64, and storing the third set of 64 all at the same time. A valarray fits this pattern beautifully, so with a machine like this, you _should_ get excellent efficiency with it. The basic problem with this design is that it requires a LOT of bandwidth to memory. A typical modern machine has an extremely fast CPU, but the main memory is a LOT slower, with a cache to make up the difference. On a machine like this, optimal usage is almost exactly the opposite -- you want to load a single value, apply _all_ your operations to it, then go on to the next value. On such a machine, most of the operations supported by valarray perform quite poorly, and the only way to get decent performance is to treat a valarray just about like a vector. -- Later, Jerry. The universe is a figment of its own imagination. Back to top Sean Dettrick Guest Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 6:00 pm    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Michael Aramini <M.Aramini (AT) Verizon (DOT) net> wrote Quote: For 1D arrays, the choices are: valarray<type> vs. vector<type For 2D arrays, the choices are: valarray< valarray vs. valarray< vector vs. vector< valarray vs. vector < vector If speeds is of the essence, I would suggest you measure the times yourself. Also consider building classes so that the underlying STL class (vector, valarray, deque) can be changed without effecting the rest of your code. For 2D and 3D arrays, I have found it is faster to use a 1D vector use vector < vector or vector < vector< vector >. In the 3D case, a 1D vector is MUCH faster than a 3D vector. In the 2D case, the speed difference was about 10% I think. Quote: In my application, type is will be a scalar type such as bool, double, int, or size_t. Then you need to read about the well known caveat about vector<bool> (e.g. in the Meyers book), and consider using deque<bool> for the bool case. Quote: The code is initially being targeted for Linux, but it may also be ported to another UNIX such as IRIX, or perhaps even Windows, so I'd like to keep things portable by using an STL container rather than one from some operating system specific template library. Sounds like you'll be using a lot of different compilers - beware that valarray is not always well supported. I found vector and valarray had the same speed, but valarray wasn't fully supported by all compilers. Finally, if you ever plan to interface to legacy C or fortran code, a 1D vector<> has the advantage that its contents are guaranteed to be contiguous in memory. That simplifies any such interface considerably. Sean Back to top vrambati Guest Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:15 am    Post subject: Re: C++ STL valarrays vs. vectors Originally posted by Sean Dettrick Quote: Michael Aramini <M.Aramini (AT) Verizon (DOT) net> wrote in message news:<SeS4b.16820$zL5.11807 (AT) nwrdny02 (DOT) gnilink.net>... For 1D arrays, the choices are: valarray<type> vs. vector<type For 2D arrays, the choices are: valarray< valarray vs. valarray< vector vs. vector< valarray vs. vector < vector If speeds is of the essence, I would suggest you measure the times yourself. Also consider building classes so that the underlying STL class (vector, valarray, deque) can be changed without effecting the rest of your code. For 2D and 3D arrays, I have found it is faster to use a 1D vector use vector < vector or vector < vector< vector >. In the 3D case, a 1D vector is MUCH faster than a 3D vector. In the 2D case, the speed difference was about 10% I think. Question: Instead of using a vector<vector for a 2d array, we can also use vector<anothertype>, where "anothertype" has two members of "type". My question: Is this way of implementation is more efficient then having a long vector of 1d with a computed index in order to manage 2d vector?. Quick replies for this question will be very useful to me. Thanks in advance. -Vijaya. In my application, type is will be a scalar type such as bool, double, int, or size_t. Then you need to read about the well known caveat about vector<bool (e.g. in the Meyers book), and consider using deque case. The code is initially being targeted for Linux, but it may also be ported to another UNIX such as IRIX, or perhaps even Windows, so I'd like to keep things portable by using an STL container rather than one from some operating system specific template library. Sounds like you'll be using a lot of different compilers - beware that valarray is not always well supported. I found vector and valarray had the same speed, but valarray wasn't fully supported by all compilers. Finally, if you ever plan to interface to legacy C or fortran code, a 1D vector<> has the advantage that its contents are guaranteed to be contiguous in memory. That simplifies any such interface considerably. Sean -- Posted via http://dbforums.com Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         C++Talk.NET Forum Index -> C++ language (comp.lang.c++) All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum C/C++----------------C LanguageC Language (Moderated)C++ Language (Moderated)C++ language (comp.lang.c++)C++ language, library and standards Non-English C/C++ Newsgroups----------------C++ (German)C++ (French)  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.