Hacker News Reader

Comment by btmorex | Hacker News Reader

So, the C++ performance numbers were with the "public" version? It wasn't clear whether they left the internal version out completely (besides the changelog) or simple didn't release the code. The published C++ numbers are already way better than any other language in terms of speed and memory use. It would be surprising if there was a substantially faster version.

View on HN

The final list of changes is supposed to be with the internal version, and roughly seem to show a 20% change over and above what the basic std::map -> ext/hash_map replacement. I'm not sure if I should add the percentages, or multiply them along to get the final runtime, though that doesn't make much difference, really :)

You're right that there may not be much improvement, but I've seen the google dense_hash_map do better sometimes than the basic SGI hash_map.

Edit: the code repo has the unoptimized versions. Oh well, at least I can get the satisfaction of seeing the 30% myself :)

afaict Yes, the C++ performance numbers were with the "public" version.

afaict Yes, they left the internal version out completely (besides the changelog).

Notice C++ Dbg has the same wc -l as C++ Opt.

Isaac, do you think you could add this problem to the shootout? I believe (and am therefore almost certainly wrong) that there isn't any benchmark there that derives almost purely from compiler theory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com