C＋＋/D/Python性能比较续
周末抽空做了点小测试，根据http://blog.vckbase.com/jzhang/archive/2006/03/28/18807.html中m网友修改的算法，python版本中读取所有行以后就做一个排序，再去除重复项。这个算法在我的机器上执行时间是1735ms左右，属于python版本中最快的一个。D版本暂还没想到有更优化的做法，D在处理以char[]作key的关联数组时，判断方法是先判断hash，如果hash相等，则继续做字符串判断。它执行时间是1120ms左右。
以D版本为基础，自己写了一个C＋＋的Email类：
<!---->class Email
{
private:
string mail;
size_t hash;
friend bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs);
public:
Email (const char* mail_)
: mail(mail_), hash(my_hash(mail_))
{
}
};
bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs)
{
if (lhs.hash == rhs.hash)
return lhs.mail < rhs.mail;
return lhs.hash < rhs.hash;
}
把它插入set并判断是否有重复。
这个程序由于string的大量拷贝，以及大量内存分配，执行时间相当长，在我的机器上是5s左右。D和python版本由于对象拷贝成本较低，加上都有内存分配策略，自然有一些优势。
退而求其次，既然hash冲突的几率较低，试试只保存hash：
<!---->class Email
{
private:
size_t hash;
friend bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs);
public:
Email (const char* mail_)
: hash(my_hash(mail_))
{
}
};
bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs)
{
return lhs.hash < rhs.hash;
}
这次测试就比较快了，耗时仅1020ms左右，比D版本还要快，当然它不是完善的版本。
考虑到构造成本，于是改为只用一个set<int>来保存hash值再测试，这次耗时是930ms。
实际上可以做一个改进的C＋＋版本，一次性读入文件的全部内容到一个大缓冲区，把所有的\n字符修改为\0，用一个动态数组保存缓冲区的所有字符串指针，hash值也须计算并保存到数组。再用D的索引方式，先hash比较，再字符串比较，效率应该也不低。
实现了一个：
<!---->#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <set>
#include <fstream>
#include <iterator>
#include <sys/time.h>
using namespace std;
size_t my_hash (const char* str)
{
size_t ret = 0;
while (*str)
ret = 11 * ret + *str++;
return ret;
}
class Email
{
private:
size_t hash;
const char* mail;
friend bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs);
public:
Email (const char* mail_)
: hash(my_hash(mail_)), mail(mail_)
{
}
};
bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs)
{
if (lhs.hash == rhs.hash)
return strcmp(lhs.mail, rhs.mail) < 0;
return lhs.hash < rhs.hash;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
if (argc < 3)
{
cout << "Wrong arguments" << endl;
return 1;
}
FILE* fin = fopen(argv[1], "r");
if (!fin)
{
cout << "Invalid input file" << endl;
return 2;
}
FILE* fout = fopen(argv[2], "w");
if (!fout)
{
fclose(fin);
cout << "Invalid output file" << endl;
return 3;
}
timeval start, end;
const int BUF_SIZE = 20 * 1024 * 1024;
char* buffer = new char;
memset(buffer, 0, BUF_SIZE);
gettimeofday(&start, 0);
set<Email> emails;
size_t read = fread (buffer, BUF_SIZE, 1, fin);
char* begin = buffer;
char* current = buffer;
while (*current != '\0')
{
if (*current == '\n')
{
*current = '\0';
if (emails.insert(begin).second){
fputs(begin, fout);
fwrite("\n", 1, 1, fout);
}
begin = current + 1;
}
++ current;
}
fclose(fout);
fclose(fin);
gettimeofday(&end, 0);
printf("Time used: %d ms\n", ((end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec) * 1000 + (end.tv_usec - start.tv_usec) / 1000));
delete[] buffer;
return 0;
}
memset不是必须的，不过我不知道如何获取读入的大小。fread读取后，如果读到EOF，则返回值为0。所以我这里用memset先初始化内存，但不把它计入耗时。new操作也没计入，因为其它语言比如python、D在启动时都由运行时做了类似工作。
这个程序在我的机器上耗时为1350ms左右。我想可慢在set上，对象拷贝？内存分配？
做了几个优化版本，没多大提高。
重新测试了下：
A、python(m网友版本）：
lijie t # python test.py
1689.0411377
lijie t # python test.py
1711.40599251
lijie t # python test.py
1699.63312149
lijie t # python test.py
1712.00013161
lijie t # python test.py
1713.8838768
B、D版本：
lijie t # ./testd email.txt email-new.txt
1091
lijie t # ./testd email.txt email-new.txt
1070
lijie t # ./testd email.txt email-new.txt
1062
lijie t # ./testd email.txt email-new.txt
1062
lijie t # ./testd email.txt email-new.txt
1096
C、C＋＋只比较hash，set<Email>版本：
lijie t # ./test3 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 981 ms
lijie t # ./test3 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1000 ms
lijie t # ./test3 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 980 ms
lijie t # ./test3 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 986 ms
lijie t # ./test3 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 987 ms
D、C＋＋只比较hash，set<int>版本：
lijie t # ./test4 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 951 ms
lijie t # ./test4 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 953 ms
lijie t # ./test4 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 947 ms
lijie t # ./test4 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 950 ms
lijie t # ./test4 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 962 ms
E、C＋＋大缓冲区，比较hash和字符串，set<Email>版本：
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1375 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1359 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1369 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1378 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1396 ms
F、C＋＋大缓冲区，比较字符串版本：
lijie t # ./test6 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1168 ms
lijie t # ./test6 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1169 ms
lijie t # ./test6 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1171 ms
lijie t # ./test6 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1179 ms
lijie t # ./test6 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1169 ms
从C、E和F来看，对象拷贝成本是比较高的，E版本仅仅比C版本多了个const char*成员变量，hash值比较散，很少会真的执行到strcmp。保持E版本对象结构不变，把operator <里面的实现改为C版本，测试结果如下：
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1355 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1360 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1348 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1353 ms
lijie t # ./test5 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1379 ms
效率只提高了一点点，这个版本仅仅比C版本多了个成员变量拷贝，竟然慢了这么多。说明Email对象的2个成员变量拷贝成本的确很高。
F版本相比之下反而效率很不错，主要原因是email数据不够复杂，仅通过前几位就可以比较出结果。如果每行数据比较长，而且很多行要到后几个字符才能比较出来，肯定就不那么快了。
hash值的计算虽然执行了一系列乘法，不过还是相当迅速。
D语言版本执行了hash值和字符串比较，是比较完善的，效率很不错。C＋＋相应版本看来要提高set的效率才能达到。
jzhang的第一个python版本在我的机器上执行如下：
lijie t # python test2.py
3122.9569912 ms
lijie t # python test2.py
3209.42997932 ms
lijie t # python test2.py
3141.47305489 ms
lijie t # python test2.py
3129.57286835 ms
lijie t # python test2.py
3196.03514671 ms
我做了点修改，执行速度提高了一些：
<!---->#remove duplicated email address from file
import datetime
from time import time
if __name__ == "__main__":
start = time()
hashtable = {}
f = file("email.txt","r")
f2 = file("email_new.txt","w")
for line in f.xreadlines():
if not hashtable.has_key(line):
hashtable = 1
f2.write(line)
f.close()
f2.close()
print (time() - start) * 1000, "ms"
在我的机器上执行结果如下：
lijie t # python test1.py
2239.22801018 ms
lijie t # python test1.py
2301.00703239 ms
lijie t # python test1.py
2282.06086159 ms
lijie t # python test1.py
2296.57006264 ms
lijie t # python test1.py
2281.25810623 ms
不过还是没有m网友的效率高。
在F版本的基础上，借鉴m网友的做法，实现一个G版本：
G、排序并去除重复元素，比较hash和字符串版本：
<!---->#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <fstream>
#include <iterator>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
size_t my_hash (const char* str)
{
size_t ret = 0;
while (*str)
ret = 11 * ret + *str++;
return ret;
}
class Email
{
private:
size_t hash;
const char* mail;
friend bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs);
public:
Email (const char* mail_)
: hash(my_hash(mail_)), mail(mail_)
{
}
bool operator == (const Email& rhs)
{
if (hash == rhs.hash)
return strcmp(mail, rhs.mail) == 0;
return false;
}
const char* getEmail()const
{
return mail;
}
};
bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs)
{
if (lhs.hash == rhs.hash)
return strcmp(lhs.mail, rhs.mail) < 0;
return lhs.hash < rhs.hash;
}
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
if (argc < 3)
{
cout << "Wrong arguments" << endl;
return 1;
}
FILE* fin = fopen(argv[1], "r");
if (!fin)
{
cout << "Invalid input file" << endl;
return 2;
}
FILE* fout = fopen(argv[2], "w");
if (!fout)
{
fclose(fin);
cout << "Invalid output file" << endl;
return 3;
}
timeval start, end;
const int BUF_SIZE = 20 * 1024 * 1024;
char* buffer = new char;
memset(buffer, 0, BUF_SIZE);
gettimeofday(&start, 0);
vector<Email> emails;
size_t read = fread (buffer, BUF_SIZE, 1, fin);
char* begin = buffer;
char* current = buffer;
while (*current != '\0')
{
if (*current == '\n')
{
*current = '\0';
emails.push_back(begin);
begin = current + 1;
}
++ current;
}
fclose(fin);
sort(emails.begin(), emails.end());
emails.erase (unique( emails.begin(), emails.end() ), emails.end());
for (vector<Email>::const_iterator iter = emails.begin();
iter != emails.end();
iter ++)
{
fputs((*iter).getEmail(), fout);
fwrite("\n", 1, 1, fout);
}
fclose(fout);
gettimeofday(&end, 0);
printf("Time used: %d ms\n", ((end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec) * 1000 + (end.tv_usec - start.tv_usec) / 1000));
delete[] buffer;
return 0;
}
在我的机器上执行如下：
lijie t # ./test7 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 676 ms
lijie t # ./test7 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 675 ms
lijie t # ./test7 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 671 ms
lijie t # ./test7 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 669 ms
lijie t # ./test7 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 673 ms
比F版本快了2倍，也快过了其它所有版本。不过由于数据是vector保存的，在数据大量重复的情况下，性能可能会有较大的降低。
把operator<和operator==的实现改为strcmp比较，执行结果如下：
lijie t # ./test8 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1275 ms
lijie t # ./test8 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1267 ms
lijie t # ./test8 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1297 ms
lijie t # ./test8 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1296 ms
lijie t # ./test8 email.txt email-new.txt
Time used: 1271 ms
修改了下，增加了计时，修正了fread使用错误。
<!---->#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <fstream>
#include <iterator>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
#ifdef _WIN32
# include <windows.h>
#else // _WIN32
# include <sys/time.h>
#endif // _WIN32
size_t my_hash (const char* str)
{
size_t ret = 0;
while (*str)
ret = 11 * ret + *str++;
return ret;
}
class Email
{
private:
size_t hash;
const char* mail;
friend bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs);
public:
Email (const char* mail_)
: hash(my_hash(mail_)), mail(mail_)
{
}
bool operator == (const Email& rhs)
{
if (hash == rhs.hash)
return strcmp(mail, rhs.mail) == 0;
return false;
}
const char* getEmail()const
{
return mail;
}
};
bool operator < (const Email& lhs, const Email& rhs)
{
if (lhs.hash == rhs.hash)
return strcmp(lhs.mail, rhs.mail) < 0;
return lhs.hash < rhs.hash;
}
#ifndef _WIN32
class Timer
{
timeval begin, end;
public:
void start () {gettimeofday(&begin, 0);}
void stop () {gettimeofday(&end, 0);}
size_t milliseconds () const {
return (end.tv_sec - begin.tv_sec) * 1000 + (end.tv_usec - begin.tv_usec) / 1000;
}
};
#else // _WIN32
class Timer
{
DWORD begin, end;
public:
void start () {begin = GetTickCount();}
void stop () {end = GetTickCount();}
size_t milliseconds () const {
return end - begin;
}
};
#endif // _WIN32
int main(int argc, char
页:
[1]