Menu
It says here that
The unbounded array is similar to a std::vector in that in can grow in size beyond any fixed bound. However unbounded_array is aimed at optimal performance. Therefore unbounded_array does not model a Sequence like std::vector does.
What does this mean?
465
A std::vector can never be faster than an array, as it has (a pointer to the first element of) an array as one of its data members. But the difference in run-time speed is slim and absent in any non-trivial program. One reason for this myth to persist, are examples that compare raw arrays with mis-used std::vectors.
Save this answer. Show activity on this post. It is highly unlikely that you'll see an appreciable performance difference between a dynamic array and a vector since the latter is essentially a very thin wrapper around the former. Also bear in mind that using a vector would be significantly less error-prone.
Vector are implemented as dynamic arrays with list interface whereas arrays can be implemented as statically or dynamically with primitive data type interface. Size of arrays are fixed whereas the vectors are resizable i.e they can grow and shrink as vectors are allocated on heap memory.
In general, I strongly prefer using a vector over an array for non-trivial work; however, there are some advantages of arrays: Arrays are slightly more compact: the size is implicit. Arrays are non-resizable; sometimes this is desirable. Arrays don't require parsing extra STL headers (compile time).
As a Boost developer myself, I can tell you that it's perfectly fine to question the statements in the documentation ;-)
From reading those docs, and from reading the source code (see storage.hpp) I can say that it's somewhat correct given some assumptions about the implementation of std::vector at the time that code was written. That code dates to 2000 initially, and perhaps as late as 2002. Which means at the time many STD implementations did not do a good job of optimizing destruction and construction of objects in containers. The claim about the non-resizing is easily refuted by using an initially large capacity vector. The claim about speed, I think, comes entirely from the fact that the unbounded_array has special code for eliding dtors & ctors when the stored objects have trivial implementations of them. Hence it can avoid calling them when it has to rearrange things, or when it's copying elements. Compared to really recent STD implementations it's not going to be faster, as new STD implementation tend to take advantage of things like move semantics to do even more optimizations.
111
It appears to lack insert and erase methods. As these may be "slow," ie their performance depends on size() in the vector implementation, they were omitted to prevent the programmer from shooting himself in the foot.
insert and erase are required by the standard for a container to be called a Sequence, so unlike vector, unbounded_array is not a sequence.
No efficiency is gained by failing to be a sequence, per se.
However, it is more efficient in its memory allocation scheme, by avoiding a concept of vector::capacity and always having the allocated block exactly the size of the content. This makes the unbounded_array object smaller and makes the block on the heap exactly as big as it needs to be.
37
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
