Good C++ array class for dealing with large arrays of data in a fast and memory efficient way?

Question

Following on from a previous question relating to heap usage restrictions, I'm looking for a good standard C++ class for dealing with big arrays of data in a way that is both memory efficient and speed efficient. I had been allocating the array using a single malloc/HealAlloc but after multiple trys using various calls, keep falling foul of heap fragmentation. So the conclusion I've come to, other than porting to 64 bit, is to use a mechanism that allows me to have a large array spanning multiple smaller memory fragments. I don't want an alloc per element as that is very memory inefficient, so the plan is to write a class that overrides the [] operator and select an appropriate element based on the index. Is there already a decent class out there to do this, or am I better off rolling my own?

From my understanding, and some googling, a 32 bit Windows process should theoretically be able address up to 2GB. Now assuming I've 2GB installed, and various other processes and services are hogging about 400MB, how much usable memory do you think my program can reasonably expect to get from the heap?

I'm currently using various flavours of Visual C++.

Edit As per Poita's post, I've tried a std::deque, using the following test on VS2008;

#include <deque>
using namespace std;
struct V    
{
    double  data[11];
};

struct T
{
    long    data[8];    
};


void    dequeTest()
{
    deque<V> VQ;
    deque<T> TQ;

    V defV;
    T defT;

    VQ.resize(4000000,defV);
    TQ.resize(8000000,defT);
}

The total memory for the above data comes out at 608MB, were I to use straight malloc or HeapAlloc, and takes < 1 second. The deque resizes took 950MB originally, and then slowly started dropping back. 15 minutes later, dequeTest() finished, using just 6MB of memory showing for the process which probably was more to do with the run-times. I also tried populating the deque using various push options, but performance was so bad, I had to break out early. I could possibly provide a better allocator than the defualt to get a much better response, but on the face of it deque is not the class for this job. Note this could also relate to the MS VS2008 implementation of deque, as there seems to be alot in this class that is very implementation dependant when it comes to performance.

Time to write my own big array class, I reckon.

Second Edit: Allocating smaller amounts yielded 1.875GB immediately using the following;

#define TenMB 1024*1024*10

void    SmallerAllocs()
{

    size_t Total = 0;
    LPVOID  p[200];
    for (int i = 0; i < 200; i++)
    {
        p[i] = malloc(TenMB);
        if (p[i])
            Total += TenMB; else
            break;
    }
    CString Msg;
    Msg.Format("Allocated %0.3lfGB",Total/(1024.0*1024.0*1024.0));
    AfxMessageBox(Msg,MB_OK);
}

Final edit I have decided to accept Poita's post and the various comments following it, not because I'll be using the deque class directly, but more for the array as a deck of cards notion in the comments that followed. This should be straightforward to implement with O(1) random element access, based on a fixed number of elements per block, which is what i need. Thanks to all for the feedback!

Answer 1

Have you tried using an std::deque? Unlike a std::vector, which uses one huge heap allocation, deque usually allocates in small chunks, but still provides amortised constant time indexing via operator[].

Answer 2

Exactly how sparse is this array? If there are large amounts of empty (unused) space in it, you may want to take another approach. The answer to this question suggests an stl map.

If it isn't sparse (as mentioned in the comments), one thing you might look into since you are running on Windows is using a memory-mapped file. Although your OS may be 32-bit, your file system is not. This does of course mean there will be swapping going on though, which is liable to be quite a bit slower than if you could really put the whole darn thing in RAM.

Also, you really ought to consider knocking the system's RAM up to the max (3GB on 32-bit Windows I believe) to see if that fixes it for you. That should only cost you about $100, and you are spending way more than that in man-hours just worrying about this.