Click here to Skip to main content
16,020,565 members
Articles / Programming Languages / C++/CLI
Article

A look at STL/CLR performance for linear containers

Rate me:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
4.80/5 (26 votes)
8 Mar 2008CDDL5 min read 90.8K   17   26
The performance of STL/CLR sequence containers are compared with that of corresponding BCL generic collection classes

test app

Introduction

This article is an attempt to compare the general performance of STL/CLR's sequence containers with the .NET generic List<T> collection class. Before I began work on the article, I strongly believed that the STL/CLR containers would be yards faster. To my utmost surprise, I found that this was not so and that List<T> surpassed the STL/CLR collections with ease.

How I compared performance

I wanted to keep things simple and used the common technique of repeating a specific operation several times. To smoothen the design, I have an interface as follows :-

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public interface class IMeasurable 
    {
        Int64 RunCode(int iterations);
    };
}

RunCode would run a specific piece of code as many times as specified by iterations, and would return the time taken in milliseconds. And I have the following abstract class that implements this interface.

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class MeasurableDoubleOp abstract : IMeasurable
    {
    private:
        static Stopwatch^ stopWatch = gcnew Stopwatch();

    public:
        virtual Int64 RunCode(int iterations)
        {
            Initialize();

            stopWatch->Reset();
            stopWatch->Start();

            RunCodeFirstOp(iterations);
            RunCodeSecondOp(iterations);

            stopWatch->Stop();

            return stopWatch->ElapsedMilliseconds;
        }

    protected:
        virtual void Initialize() {}
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) abstract;
        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) abstract;
    };
}

To profile a certain collection class, I just derive from this abstract class and implement RunCodeFirstOp and RunCodeSecondOp. I also have a MeasurableSingleOp class for doing tests that do not involve a two-step operation.

STL vector vs List<T> - basic insertion/removal

Here are the implementations of the vector specific and List<T> specific classes.

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class VectorInsertRemove : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        cliext::vector<int> vector;

    protected:
        IEnumerable<int>^ GetVector()
        {
            return %vector;
        }

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                vector.push_back(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                vector.pop_back();
            }
        }
    };
}
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class GenericListInsertRemove : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        List<int> list;

    protected:
        IEnumerable<int>^ GetList()
        {
            return %list;
        }

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.Add(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.RemoveAt(list.Count - 1);
            }
        }
    };
}

And here are my test results. As you can see, the BCL class (List<T>) completely outperformed the STL/CLR vector class.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000153
5000006332
100000012221
100000001311299

Here's a graphical plot of how the two containers performed. Clearly, the BCL class's performance was quite superior to the STL vector's.

STL vector vs List - basic insertion/removal

As you can imagine I was quite surprised by this result. Just for the heck of it I thought I should also compare the standard STL vector with the STL/CLR vector implementation. Note than I am still using managed code (/clr) - the standard STL code is also compiled as /clr. Here are my surprising results.

IterationsSTL/CLRStandard STL
1000001139
50000058202
1000000117391
1000000011613919

STL/CLR vector vs standard vector - basic insertion/removal

Based on that result, you should absolutely avoid compiling native STL code using /clr. Merely porting to STL/CLR would help performance in a big way. You might find that all you need is a namespace change (cliext to std) and you may not have to change too much code elsewhere. And no, I did not conclude this merely on my test results with vector, I compared the standard list and the STL/CLR list containers with the following results.

IterationsSTL/CLRStd list
10000033101
50000063175
1000000274349
1000000029693663

STL list vs List - basic insertion/removal

As you can see, the difference in performance is non-trivial. Please note that we are not comparing the native performance of STL here. We are comparing how the native implementation when compiled under /clr compares with the CLR implementation of STL.

STL list vs List<T> - basic insertion/removal

Here's my implementation for the STL list specific class.

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class StlListInsertRemove : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        cliext::list<int> list;

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.push_back(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.pop_back();
            }
        }
    };
}

And here are my test results. Here, the contrast is even more - not surprising really, as the STL list will always be slower than the STL vector for straight inserts and removals.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000322
50000014911
100000033223
100000003719331

And here's a graphical plot of the results.

STL list vs List - basic insertion/removal

STL deque vs List<T> - basic insertion/removal

Here's the deque implementation.

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class DequeInsertRemove : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        cliext::deque<int> deque;

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                deque.push_back(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                deque.pop_back();
            }
        }
    };
}

Here are my results. Nothing's changed in the pattern - the BCL class is way faster here too.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000332
5000006613
10000008326
100000001061251

And here's the graph.

STL deque vs List - basic insertion/removal

The BCL equivalent of a queue is the Queue<T> class - so just to be sure we are comparing apples with apples, I went ahead and ran tests comparing the STL/CLR deque with the BCL Queue<T>. My results and the corresponding graph follow.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000126
5000004915
10000008928
100000001044335

STL deque vs Queue - basic insertion/removal

The Queue<T> class seems to be marginally slower than List<T> but is still way faster than the STL/CLR deque container.

STL vector vs List<T> - basic iteration

This time, I wanted to test the speed with which we can iterate over a linear collection. Here are the vector and List<T> specific iteration test implementations.

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class VectorIterate : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        cliext::vector<int> vector;

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            vector.clear();

            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                vector.push_back(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            for(cliext::vector<int>::iterator it = vector.begin(); it != vector.end(); it++)
            {
            }
        }
    };
}
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class GenericListIterate : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        List<int> list;

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            list.Clear();

            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.Add(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            for each(int x in list)
            {
            }
        }
    };
}

Here are my test results. The results further proved the superior efficiency of the List<T> class.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000242
5000009316
100000019431
100000002009394

And here's the corresponding graph.

STL vector vs List - basic iteration

STL vector vs List<T> - Linq access (where)

For the Linq tests, I used a C# project (for easier syntax). I derived from the insert tester and merely overrode the RunCodeSecondOp method as I wanted to keep the insertion code intact.

C#
namespace LinqTests
{
    public class VectorLinqWhere : VectorInsertRemove
    {
        public override void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations)
        {
            IEnumerable<int> _vector = GetVector();
            var newVector = _vector.Where(x => x % 2 == 0);
        }
    }
}
namespace LinqTests
{
    public class GenericListLinqWhere : GenericListInsertRemove
    {
        public override void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations)
        {
            IEnumerable<int> _list = GetList();
            var newList = _list.Where(x => x % 2 == 0);
        }
    }
}

Here are the results of my test runs. The results here are partially contaminated by the fact that the insertion code speed differences would also come into play. But the difference in performance is large enough to safely ignore that for now, and again LINQ works much faster on the BCL class as compared to the STL/CLR version.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000181
500000447
10000007911
10000000842168

And here's the graph.

Linq where test

STL vector vs List<T> - Linq access (take)

This is similar to the previous one except I use Take instead of Where.

C#
namespace LinqTests
{
    public class VectorLinqTake : VectorInsertRemove
    {
        public override void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations)
        {
            IEnumerable<int> _vector = GetVector();
            var newVector = _vector.Take(_vector.Count() / 2);
        }
    }
}
namespace LinqTests
{
    public class GenericListLinqTake : GenericListInsertRemove
    {
        public override void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations)
        {
            IEnumerable<int> _list = GetList();
            var newList = _list.Take(_list.Count() / 2);
        }
    }
}

Here's the result of my tests. These results are very similar to the previous test.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
10000070
500000354
10000007010
10000000865205

And the corresponding graph.

Linq take test

Sorting

I ran tests comparing sorting speeds of the List<T> class with the STL/CLR vector and list containers. The code used follows.

MC++
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class GenericListSort : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        List<int> list;

    protected:
        IEnumerable<int>^ GetList()
        {
            return %list;
        }

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.Add(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            list.Sort();
        }
    };
}

namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class StlListSort : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        cliext::list<int> list;

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                list.push_back(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            list.sort();
        }
    };
}
namespace STLCLRTests 
{
    public ref class VectorSort : MeasurableDoubleOp
    {
    private:
        cliext::vector<int> vector;

    protected:
        IEnumerable<int>^ GetVector()
        {
            return %vector;
        }

    public:
        virtual void RunCodeFirstOp(int iterations) override
        {
            for(int count=0; count<iterations; count++)
            {
                vector.push_back(10);
            }
        }

        virtual void RunCodeSecondOp(int iterations) override 
        {
            sort(vector.begin(), vector.end());
        }
    };
}

Here are the results for vector versus List<T>.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
100000377
50000013653
1000000325137
1000000026951088
vector sort vs List sort

And here are my results for stl list versus List<T>.

IterationsSTL/CLRBCL
1000001387
500000116251
10000005355128
10000000319851095
STL list sort vs VCL List sort

Conclusion

One of the features that was strongly marketed before STL/CLR was released was its performance benefits over regular .NET collections. But the .NET generic List<T> seems to be much faster. At this stage all I can think of as a valid case for using STL/CLR would be when doing a first-level port of existing C++ code ( that heavily uses STL) to managed code.

License

This article, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL)


Written By
United States United States
Nish Nishant is a technology enthusiast from Columbus, Ohio. He has over 20 years of software industry experience in various roles including Chief Technology Officer, Senior Solution Architect, Lead Software Architect, Principal Software Engineer, and Engineering/Architecture Team Leader. Nish is a 14-time recipient of the Microsoft Visual C++ MVP Award.

Nish authored C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications in 2005, and co-authored Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework for Addison Wesley in 2003. In addition, he has over 140 published technology articles on CodeProject.com and another 250+ blog articles on his WordPress blog. Nish is experienced in technology leadership, solution architecture, software architecture, cloud development (AWS and Azure), REST services, software engineering best practices, CI/CD, mentoring, and directing all stages of software development.

Nish's Technology Blog : voidnish.wordpress.com

Comments and Discussions

 
SuggestionSee I++ Lists for Alternative Performance Figures Pin
Member 1569927524-Jan-23 9:31
Member 1569927524-Jan-23 9:31 
QuestionMemory allocation is also very different... and some more comments. Pin
Philippe Mori4-Nov-11 15:22
Philippe Mori4-Nov-11 15:22 
AnswerRe: Memory allocation is also very different... and some more comments. Pin
Nish Nishant6-Nov-11 3:26
sitebuilderNish Nishant6-Nov-11 3:26 
GeneralMy vote of 3 Pin
Yuancai (Charlie) Ye12-Jan-11 2:55
Yuancai (Charlie) Ye12-Jan-11 2:55 
GeneralMy vote of 1 Pin
langolas3-Nov-10 5:08
langolas3-Nov-10 5:08 
GeneralI don't buy this Pin
are_all_nicks_taken_or_what19-Jan-10 0:51
are_all_nicks_taken_or_what19-Jan-10 0:51 
Generalmy results Pin
valery trofimov24-Feb-09 1:22
valery trofimov24-Feb-09 1:22 
Generalsource code Pin
clintonvanry28-Sep-08 9:24
clintonvanry28-Sep-08 9:24 
Generalyour results looks wrong Pin
rm8229-Aug-08 16:57
rm8229-Aug-08 16:57 
Generalstd::list and gcroot Pin
gooja27-Jun-08 23:50
gooja27-Jun-08 23:50 
QuestionChecked? Pin
Nemanja Trifunovic9-Mar-08 16:01
Nemanja Trifunovic9-Mar-08 16:01 
AnswerRe: Checked? Pin
andromedarabbit9-Mar-08 18:03
andromedarabbit9-Mar-08 18:03 
GeneralRe: Checked? Pin
Randor 25-Apr-08 11:09
professional Randor 25-Apr-08 11:09 
QuestionWhy? Pin
Shog98-Mar-08 9:20
sitebuilderShog98-Mar-08 9:20 
AnswerRe: Why? Pin
Nish Nishant8-Mar-08 10:47
sitebuilderNish Nishant8-Mar-08 10:47 
GeneralRe: Why? Pin
Rama Krishna Vavilala8-Mar-08 13:35
Rama Krishna Vavilala8-Mar-08 13:35 
GeneralRe: Why? Pin
andromedarabbit9-Mar-08 18:05
andromedarabbit9-Mar-08 18:05 
GeneralRe: Why? Pin
Shao Voon Wong9-Apr-08 20:10
mvaShao Voon Wong9-Apr-08 20:10 
QuestionDebug or Release ? Pin
Argiris Kirtzidis8-Mar-08 5:18
Argiris Kirtzidis8-Mar-08 5:18 
AnswerRe: Debug or Release ? Pin
Nish Nishant8-Mar-08 5:36
sitebuilderNish Nishant8-Mar-08 5:36 
GeneralThe missing stat... Pin
Axel Rietschin8-Mar-08 3:14
professionalAxel Rietschin8-Mar-08 3:14 
GeneralRe: The missing stat... Pin
Nish Nishant8-Mar-08 3:17
sitebuilderNish Nishant8-Mar-08 3:17 
GeneralRe: The missing stat... Pin
Jim Crafton8-Mar-08 12:11
Jim Crafton8-Mar-08 12:11 
GeneralRe: The missing stat... Pin
Nish Nishant8-Mar-08 12:55
sitebuilderNish Nishant8-Mar-08 12:55 
GeneralRe: The missing stat... Pin
Philippe Mori4-Nov-11 15:30
Philippe Mori4-Nov-11 15:30 

General General    News News    Suggestion Suggestion    Question Question    Bug Bug    Answer Answer    Joke Joke    Praise Praise    Rant Rant    Admin Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.