Performance Improvement with the StringBuilder for C++

Re:Performance Improvement with the StringBuilder for C++ by lucian1900 on Friday September 06, 2013 @11:26AM (#6340883)

Trees (like the ropes you might use in this case) are not necessarily faster on modern CPUs. Caches and branch prediction tend to dominate performance in such cases.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Performance Improvement with the StringBuilder for C++ by gngeal on Friday September 06, 2013 @02:49PM (#6341997)

I don't see how branch prediction and caches could dominate performance of logically concatenating a huge amount of text instead of doing it physically.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Performance Improvement with the StringBuilder for C++ by dkersten on Friday September 06, 2013 @03:16PM (#6342119)

I guess it depends on what other operations you need. If the only operation you need is concatenation then trees are definitely faster. Otherwise it depends.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Performance Improvement with the StringBuilder for C++ by lucian1900 on Saturday September 07, 2013 @01:45PM (#6345789)

Arrays and copies are often faster than the equivalent structure-sharing trees, under a certain size at least.

[ Parent | on HN ]