Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
This paper describes an experimental study to compare the performance of various dynamically resizable bit-vector implementations for the C++ programming language. We compare the std::vector from the Standard Template Library (STL), boost::dynamic_bitset from Boost, Qt::QBitArray from QT Software, and BitMagic's bm::bvector with one another. We also compare std::vector from the STL with these because it is a dynamically resizable vector implementation that has been suggested to be an acceptable alternative for std::vector. We describe the test data and the methods that were applied to measure memory use and processing time. This lays a foundation for comparing other parts of the different C++ libraries. The results are presented and discussed in terms of the differences in the implementations of these data structures. Although the results reported in this article is specific to the mentioned C++ libraries, the techniques used to measure and compare the performance of the different libraries go beyond C++ bit-vectors and may be used more generally. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2010 | 10.1145/1899503.1899530 | SAICSIT Conf. |
Keywords | DocType | Citations |
bit-vector implementation,qt software,various dynamically resizable bit-vector,different library,different c,dynamically resizable vector implementation,acceptable alternative,test data,standard template library,experimental study,data structure,c,benchmark | Conference | 3 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.41 | 2 | 4 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vreda Pieterse | 1 | 24 | 8.12 |
| Derrick G. Kourie | 2 | 223 | 33.10 |
| Loek Cleophas | 3 | 41 | 13.89 |
| Bruce W. Watson | 4 | 338 | 53.24 |