Fast intersection of sets: C++ vs C#

Question

On my machine (Quad core, 8gb ram), running Vista x64 Business, with Visual Studio 2008 SP1, I am trying to intersect two sets of numbers very quickly.

I've implemented two approaches in C++, and one in C#. The C# approach is faster so far, I'd like to improve the C++ approach so its faster than C#, which I expect C++ can do.

Here is the C# output: (Release build)

Found the intersection 1000 times, in 4741.407 ms

Here is the initial C++ output, for two different approaches (Release x64 build):

Found the intersection (using unordered_map) 1000 times, in 21580.7ms
Found the intersection (using set_intersection) 1000 times, in 22366.6ms

Here is the latest C++ output, for three approaches (Release x64 build):

Latest benchmark:

Found the intersection of 504 values (using unordered_map) 1000 times, in 28827.6ms
Found the intersection of 495 values (using set_intersection) 1000 times, in 9817.69ms
Found the intersection of 504 values (using unordered_set) 1000 times, in 24769.1ms

So, the set_intersection approach is now approx 2x slower than C#, but 2x faster than the initial C++ approaches.

Latest C++ code:

Code:

// MapPerformance.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <hash_map>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
#include <algorithm>
#include <set>
#include <unordered_set>

#include <boost\unordered\unordered_map.hpp>

#include "timer.h"

using namespace std;
using namespace stdext;
using namespace boost;
using namespace tr1;


int runIntersectionTest2(const vector<int>& set1, const vector<int>& set2)
{
    // hash_map<int,int> theMap;
    // map<int,int> theMap;
    unordered_set<int> theSet;      

     theSet.insert( set1.begin(), set1.end() );

    int intersectionSize = 0;

    vector<int>::const_iterator set2_end = set2.end();

    for ( vector<int>::const_iterator iterator = set2.begin(); iterator != set2_end; ++iterator )
    {
        if ( theSet.find(*iterator) != theSet.end() )
        {
                intersectionSize++;
        }
    }

    return intersectionSize;
}

int runIntersectionTest(const vector<int>& set1, const vector<int>& set2)
{
    // hash_map<int,int> theMap;
    // map<int,int> theMap;
    unordered_map<int,int> theMap;  

    vector<int>::const_iterator set1_end = set1.end();

    // Now intersect the two sets by populating the map
    for ( vector<int>::const_iterator iterator = set1.begin(); iterator != set1_end; ++iterator )
    {
        int value = *iterator;

        theMap[value] = 1;
    }

    int intersectionSize = 0;

    vector<int>::const_iterator set2_end = set2.end();

    for ( vector<int>::const_iterator iterator = set2.begin(); iterator != set2_end; ++iterator )
    {
        int value = *iterator;

        unordered_map<int,int>::iterator foundValue = theMap.find(value);

        if ( foundValue != theMap.end() )
        {
            theMap[value] = 2;

            intersectionSize++;
        }
    }

    return intersectionSize;

}

int runSetIntersection(const vector<int>& set1_unsorted, const vector<int>& set2_unsorted)
{   
    // Create two vectors
    std::vector<int> set1(set1_unsorted.size());
    std::vector<int> set2(set2_unsorted.size());

    // Copy the unsorted data into them
    std::copy(set1_unsorted.begin(), set1_unsorted.end(), set1.begin());
    std::copy(set2_unsorted.begin(), set2_unsorted.end(), set2.begin());

    // Sort the data
    sort(set1.begin(),set1.end());
    sort(set2.begin(),set2.end());

    vector<int> intersection;
    intersection.reserve(1000);

    set_intersection(set1.begin(),set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), back_inserter(intersection));

    return intersection.size(); 
}

void createSets( vector<int>& set1, vector<int>& set2 )
{
    srand ( time(NULL) );

    set1.reserve(100000);
    set2.reserve(1000);

    // Create 100,000 values for set1
    for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ )
    {
        int value = 1000000000 + i;
        set1.push_back(value);
    }

    // Try to get half of our values intersecting
    float ratio = 200000.0f / RAND_MAX;


    // Create 1,000 values for set2
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        int random = rand() * ratio + 1;

        int value = 1000000000 + random;
        set2.push_back(value);
    }

    // Make sure set1 is in random order (not sorted)
    random_shuffle(set1.begin(),set1.end());
}

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
    int intersectionSize = 0;

    vector<int> set1, set2; 
    createSets( set1, set2 );

    Timer timer;
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        intersectionSize = runIntersectionTest(set1, set2);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection of " << intersectionSize << " values (using unordered_map) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    timer.Reset();
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        intersectionSize = runSetIntersection(set1,set2);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection of " << intersectionSize << " values (using set_intersection) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    timer.Reset();
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        intersectionSize = runIntersectionTest2(set1,set2);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection of " << intersectionSize << " values (using unordered_set) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    getchar();

    return 0;
}

C# code:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;

namespace DictionaryPerformance
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            List<int> set1 = new List<int>(100000);
            List<int> set2 = new List<int>(1000);

            // Create 100,000 values for set1
            for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
            {
                int value = 1000000000 + i;
                set1.Add(value);
            }

            Random random = new Random(DateTime.Now.Millisecond);

            // Create 1,000 values for set2
            for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
            {
                int value = 1000000000 + (random.Next() % 200000 + 1);
                set2.Add(value);
            }

            long start = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.GetTimestamp();
            for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
            {
                runIntersectionTest(set1,set2);
            }
            long duration = System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.GetTimestamp() - start;

            Console.WriteLine(String.Format("Found the intersection 1000 times, in {0} ms", ((float) duration * 1000.0f) / System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.Frequency));

            Console.ReadKey();
        }

        static int runIntersectionTest(List<int> set1, List<int> set2)
        {

            Dictionary<int,int> theMap = new Dictionary<int,int>(100000);

            // Now intersect the two sets by populating the map
            foreach( int value in set1 )
            {
                theMap[value] = 1;
            }

            int intersectionSize = 0;

            foreach ( int value in set2 )
            {
                int count;
                if ( theMap.TryGetValue(value, out count ) )
                {
                    theMap[value] = 2;
                    intersectionSize++;
                }
            }

            return intersectionSize;
        }
    }
}

C++ code:

// MapPerformance.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <hash_map>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
#include <algorithm>
#include <set>

#include <boost\unordered\unordered_map.hpp>

#include "timer.h"

using namespace std;
using namespace stdext;
using namespace boost;

int runIntersectionTest(vector<int> set1, vector<int> set2)
{
    // hash_map<int,int> theMap;
    // map<int,int> theMap;
    unordered_map<int,int> theMap;

    // Now intersect the two sets by populating the map
    for ( vector<int>::iterator iterator = set1.begin(); iterator != set1.end(); iterator++ )
    {
        int value = *iterator;

        theMap[value] = 1;
    }

    int intersectionSize = 0;

    for ( vector<int>::iterator iterator = set2.begin(); iterator != set2.end(); iterator++ )
    {
        int value = *iterator;

        unordered_map<int,int>::iterator foundValue = theMap.find(value);

        if ( foundValue != theMap.end() )
        {
            theMap[value] = 2;

            intersectionSize++;
        }
    }

    return intersectionSize;

}

int runSetIntersection(set<int> set1, set<int> set2)
{   
    set<int> intersection;

    set_intersection(set1.begin(),set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), inserter(intersection, intersection.end()));

    return intersection.size(); 
}



int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
    srand ( time(NULL) );

    vector<int> set1;
    vector<int> set2;

    set1.reserve(10000);
    set2.reserve(1000);

    // Create 100,000 values for set1
    for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ )
    {
        int value = 1000000000 + i;
        set1.push_back(value);
    }

    // Create 1,000 values for set2
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        int random = rand() % 200000 + 1;
        random *= 10;

        int value = 1000000000 + random;
        set2.push_back(value);
    }


    Timer timer;
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        runIntersectionTest(set1, set2);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection (using unordered_map) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    set<int> set21;
    set<int> set22;

    // Create 100,000 values for set1
    for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ )
    {
        int value = 1000000000 + i;
        set21.insert(value);
    }

    // Create 1,000 values for set2
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        int random = rand() % 200000 + 1;
        random *= 10;

        int value = 1000000000 + random;
        set22.insert(value);
    }

    timer.Reset();
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        runSetIntersection(set21,set22);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection (using set_intersection) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    getchar();

    return 0;
}

---

Ok, here is the latest, with some changes:

• The C++ sets are now properly setup so they have a 50% intersection (like the C#)
• Set1 is shuffled so its not sorted, set2 was already not sorted
• The set_intersection implementation now uses vectors, and sorts them first

C++ (Release, x64) Results:

Found the intersection of 503 values (using unordered_map) 1000 times, in 35131.1ms
Found the intersection of 494 values (using set_intersection) 1000 times, in 10317ms

So its 2x slower than C#. @Jalf: You're getting some pretty fast numbers, is there something I'm doing wrong here?

C++ Code:

// MapPerformance.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"
#include <hash_map>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
#include <algorithm>
#include <set>

#include <boost\unordered\unordered_map.hpp>

#include "timer.h"

using namespace std;
using namespace stdext;
using namespace boost;

int runIntersectionTest(const vector<int>& set1, const vector<int>& set2)
{
    // hash_map<int,int> theMap;
    // map<int,int> theMap;
    unordered_map<int,int> theMap;  

    vector<int>::const_iterator set1_end = set1.end();

    // Now intersect the two sets by populating the map
    for ( vector<int>::const_iterator iterator = set1.begin(); iterator != set1_end; ++iterator )
    {
        int value = *iterator;

        theMap[value] = 1;
    }

    int intersectionSize = 0;

    vector<int>::const_iterator set2_end = set2.end();

    for ( vector<int>::const_iterator iterator = set2.begin(); iterator != set2_end; ++iterator )
    {
        int value = *iterator;

        unordered_map<int,int>::iterator foundValue = theMap.find(value);

        if ( foundValue != theMap.end() )
        {
            theMap[value] = 2;

            intersectionSize++;
        }
    }

    return intersectionSize;

}

int runSetIntersection(const vector<int> set1_unsorted, const vector<int> set2_unsorted)
{   
    // Create two vectors
    std::vector<int> set1(set1_unsorted.size());
    std::vector<int> set2(set2_unsorted.size());

    // Copy the unsorted data into them
    std::copy(set1_unsorted.begin(), set1_unsorted.end(), set1.begin());
    std::copy(set2_unsorted.begin(), set2_unsorted.end(), set2.begin());

    // Sort the data
    sort(set1.begin(),set1.end());
    sort(set2.begin(),set2.end());

    vector<int> intersection;
    intersection.reserve(1000);

    set_intersection(set1.begin(),set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), inserter(intersection, intersection.end()));

    return intersection.size(); 
}

void createSets( vector<int>& set1, vector<int>& set2 )
{
    srand ( time(NULL) );

    set1.reserve(100000);
    set2.reserve(1000);

    // Create 100,000 values for set1
    for ( int i = 0; i < 100000; i++ )
    {
        int value = 1000000000 + i;
        set1.push_back(value);
    }

    // Try to get half of our values intersecting
    float ratio = 200000.0f / RAND_MAX;


    // Create 1,000 values for set2
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        int random = rand() * ratio + 1;

        int value = 1000000000 + random;
        set2.push_back(value);
    }

    // Make sure set1 is in random order (not sorted)
    random_shuffle(set1.begin(),set1.end());
}

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
    int intersectionSize = 0;

    vector<int> set1, set2; 
    createSets( set1, set2 );

    Timer timer;
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        intersectionSize = runIntersectionTest(set1, set2);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection of " << intersectionSize << " values (using unordered_map) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    timer.Reset();
    for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ )
    {
        intersectionSize = runSetIntersection(set1,set2);
    }
    timer.Stop();

    cout << "Found the intersection of " << intersectionSize << " values (using set_intersection) 1000 times, in " << timer.GetMilliseconds() << "ms" << endl;

    getchar();

    return 0;
}

Answer 1

There are several problems with your test.

First, you are not testing set intersection, but "create a couple of arrays, fill them with random numbers, and then perform set intersection". You should only time the portion of the code you're actually interested in. Even if you're going to want to do those things, they should not be benchmarked here. Measure one thing at a time, to reduce uncertainty. If you want your C++ implementation to perform better, you first need to know which part of it is slower than expected. Which means you have to separate setup code from intersection test.

Second, you should run the test a large number of times to take possible caching effects and other uncertainties into account. (And probably output one total time for, say, 1000 runs, rather than an individual time for each. That way you reduce the uncertainty from the timer which might have limited resolution and report inaccurate results when used in the 0-20ms range.

Further, as far as I can read from the docs, the input to set_intersection should be sorted, which set2 won't be. An there seems to be no reason to use unordered_map, when unordered_set would be a far better match for what you're doing.

About the setup code being needed, note that you probably don't need to populate vectors in order to run the intersection. Both your own implementation and set_intersection work on iterators already, so you can simply pass them a pair of iterators to the data structures your inputs are in already.

A few more specific comments on your code:

• Use ++iterator instead of iterator++
• rather than calling vector.end() at each loop iteration, call it once and cache the result
• experiment with using sorted vectors vs std::set vs unordered_set (not unordered_map)

Edit:

I haven't tried your C# version, so I can't compare the numbers properly, but here's my modified test. Each is run 1000 times, on a Core 2 Quad 2.5GHz with 4GB RAM:

std::set_intersection on std::set: 2606ms
std::set_intersection on tr1::unordered_set: 1014ms
std::set_intersection on sorted vectors: 171ms
std::set_intersection on unsorted vectors: 10140ms

The last one is a bit unfair, because it has to both copy and sort the vectors. Ideally, only the sort should be part of the benchmark. I tried creating a version that used an array of 1000 unsorted vectors (so I woudln't have to copy the unsorted data in each iteration), but the performance was about the same, or a bit worse, because this would cause constant cache misses, so I reverted back to this version

And my code:

#define _SECURE_SCL 0

#include <ctime>
#include <vector>
#include <set>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <unordered_set>
#include <windows.h>

template <typename T, typename OutIter>
void stl_intersect(const T& set1, const T& set2, OutIter out){
    std::set_intersection(set1.begin(), set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), out);
}

template <typename T, typename OutIter>
void sort_stl_intersect(T& set1, T& set2, OutIter out){
    std::sort(set1.begin(), set1.end());
    std::sort(set2.begin(), set2.end());
    std::set_intersection(set1.begin(), set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), out);
}


template <typename T>
void init_sorted_vec(T first, T last){
    for ( T cur = first; cur != last; ++cur)
    {
        int i = cur - first;
        int value = 1000000000 + i;
        *cur = value;
    }
}

template <typename T>
void init_unsorted_vec(T first, T last){
    for ( T cur = first; cur != last; ++cur)
    {
        int i = rand() % 200000 + 1;
        i *= 10;

        int value = 1000000000 + i;
        *cur = value;
    }
}

struct resize_and_shuffle {
    resize_and_shuffle(int size) : size(size) {}

    void operator()(std::vector<int>& vec){
        vec.resize(size);

    }
    int size;
};

int main()
{
    srand ( time(NULL) );
    std::vector<int> out(100000);

    std::vector<int> sortedvec1(100000);
    std::vector<int> sortedvec2(1000);

    init_sorted_vec(sortedvec1.begin(), sortedvec1.end());
    init_unsorted_vec(sortedvec2.begin(), sortedvec2.end());
    std::sort(sortedvec2.begin(), sortedvec2.end());

    std::vector<int> unsortedvec1(sortedvec1.begin(), sortedvec1.end());
    std::vector<int> unsortedvec2(sortedvec2.begin(), sortedvec2.end());

    std::random_shuffle(unsortedvec1.begin(), unsortedvec1.end());
    std::random_shuffle(unsortedvec2.begin(), unsortedvec2.end());

    std::vector<int> vecs1[1000];
    std::vector<int> vecs2[1000];

    std::fill(vecs1, vecs1 + 1000, unsortedvec1);
    std::fill(vecs2, vecs2 + 1000, unsortedvec2);

    std::set<int> set1(sortedvec1.begin(), sortedvec1.end());
    std::set<int> set2(sortedvec2.begin(), sortedvec2.end());

    std::tr1::unordered_set<int> uset1(sortedvec1.begin(), sortedvec1.end());
    std::tr1::unordered_set<int> uset2(sortedvec2.begin(), sortedvec2.end());

    DWORD start, stop;
    DWORD delta[4];

    start = GetTickCount();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i){
        stl_intersect(set1, set2, out.begin());
    }
    stop = GetTickCount();
    delta[0] = stop - start;

    start = GetTickCount();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i){
        stl_intersect(uset1, uset2, out.begin());
    }
    stop = GetTickCount();
    delta[1] = stop - start;

    start = GetTickCount();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i){
        stl_intersect(sortedvec1, sortedvec2, out.begin());
    }
    stop = GetTickCount();
    delta[2] = stop - start;

    start = GetTickCount();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i){
        sort_stl_intersect(vecs1[i], vecs1[i], out.begin());
    }
    stop = GetTickCount();
    delta[3] = stop - start;

    std::cout << "std::set_intersection on std::set: " << delta[0] << "ms\n";
    std::cout << "std::set_intersection on tr1::unordered_set: " << delta[1] << "ms\n";
    std::cout << "std::set_intersection on sorted vectors: " << delta[2] << "ms\n";
    std::cout << "std::set_intersection on unsorted vectors: " << delta[3] << "ms\n";


    return 0;
}

There's no reason why C++ should always be faster than C#. C# has a few key advantages that require a lot of care to compete with in C++. The primary one I can think of is that dynamic allocations are ridiculously cheap in .NET-land. Every time a C++ vector, set or unordered_set (or any other container) has to resize or expand, it is a very costly malloc operation. In .NET, a heap allocation is little more than adding an offset to a pointer.

So if you want the C++ version to compete, you'll probably have to solve that, allowing your containers to resize without having to perform actual heap allocations, probably by using custom allocators for the containers (perhaps boost::pool might be a good bet, or you can try rolling your own)

Another issue is that set_difference only works on sorted input, and in order to reproduce tests results that involve a sort, we have to make a fresh copy of the unsorted data in each iteration, which is costly (although again, using custom allocators will help a lot). I don't know what form your input takes, but it is possible that you can sort your input directly, without copying it, and then run set_difference directly on that. (That would be easy to do if your input is an array or a STL container at least.)

One of the key advantages of the STL is that it is so flexible, it can work on pretty much any input sequence. In C#, you pretty much have to copy the input to a List or Dictionary or something, but in C++, you might be able to get away with running std::sort and set_intersection on the raw input.

Finally, of course, try running the code through a profiler and see exactly where the time is being spent. You might also want to try running the code through GCC instead. It's my impression that STL performance in MSVC is sometimes a bit quirky. It might be worth testing under another compiler just to see if you get similar timings there.

Finally, you might find these blog posts relevant for performance of C++ vs C#: http://blogs.msdn.com/ricom/archive/2005/05/10/416151.aspx

The morale of those is essentially that yes, you can get better performance in C++, but it is a surprising amount of work.

Answer 2

One problem I see right away is that you're passing the sets in C++ by value and not by const reference. So you're copying them every time you pass them around!

Also, I would not use a set for the target of set_intersection. I would use something like

int runSetIntersection(const set<int>& set1, const set<int>& set2)
{   
    vector<int> intersection;
    intersection.reserve(10000) // or whatever the max is

    set_intersection(set1.begin(),set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), back_inserter(intersection));

    return intersection.size(); 
}

This code, however, still allocates inside the function. Even faster would be

int runSetIntersection(const set<int>& set1, const set<int>& set2, vector<int>& scratch)
{   
    scratch.reserve(10000) // or whatever the max is

    set_intersection(set1.begin(),set1.end(), set2.begin(), set2.end(), back_inserter(scratch));

    return scratch.size(); 
}

And then allocate scratch before you start the timer.

Though, if you're just looking for the size, a hand-written for loop, combined with set::find might give even better results.