我的笔记本电脑是联想G770 (4gb内存)。

操作系统为Windows 7 64位(笔记本电脑版本)

编译器是MinGW 4.6.1。

IDE为Code::Blocks。

我测试了第一篇文章的源代码。

结果

O2优化

UseArray完成用时2.841秒

UseVector在2.548秒内完成

UseVectorPushBack在11.95秒内完成

全程用时17.342秒

系统暂停

O3优化

UseArray完成用时1.452秒

UseVector在2.514秒内完成

UseVectorPushBack在12.967秒内完成

全程用时16.937秒

在O3优化下，向量的性能更差。

如果你把循环改为

    pixels[i].r = i;
    pixels[i].g = i;
    pixels[i].b = i;

在O2和O3下，数组和矢量的速度几乎相同。

GNU's STL (and others), given vector<T>(n), default constructs a prototypal object T() - the compiler will optimise away the empty constructor - but then a copy of whatever garbage happened to be in the memory addresses now reserved for the object is taken by the STL's __uninitialized_fill_n_aux, which loops populating copies of that object as the default values in the vector. So, "my" STL is not looping constructing, but constructing then loop/copying. It's counter intuitive, but I should have remembered as I commented on a recent stackoverflow question about this very point: the construct/copy can be more efficient for reference counted objects etc..

So:

vector<T> x(n);

or

vector<T> x;
x.resize(n);

是-在许多STL实现中-类似于:

T temp;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
    x[i] = temp;

The issue being that the current generation of compiler optimisers don't seem to work from the insight that temp is uninitialised garbage, and fail to optimise out the loop and default copy constructor invocations. You could credibly argue that compilers absolutely shouldn't optimise this away, as a programmer writing the above has a reasonable expectation that all the objects will be identical after the loop, even if garbage (usual caveats about 'identical'/operator== vs memcmp/operator= etc apply). The compiler can't be expected to have any extra insight into the larger context of std::vector<> or the later usage of the data that would suggest this optimisation safe.

这可以与更明显的直接实现形成对比:

for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
    x[i] = T();

我们可以期待一个编译器优化。

为了更明确地解释vector行为的这一方面，可以考虑:

std::vector<big_reference_counted_object> x(10000);

显然，如果我们创建10000个独立对象，而不是创建10000个引用相同数据的对象，这是一个很大的区别。有一种合理的观点认为，保护普通c++用户不意外地做一些如此昂贵的事情的好处超过了现实世界中难以优化的拷贝构造的非常小的成本。

原始答案(供参考/理解评论): 没有机会。Vector和数组一样快，至少如果你合理地保留空间. ...

尝试禁用检查迭代器并在发布模式下构建。您应该不会看到太大的性能差异。

这似乎取决于编译器标志。下面是一个基准代码:

#include <chrono>
#include <cmath>
#include <ctime>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>


int main(){

    int size = 1000000; // reduce this number in case your program crashes
    int L = 10;

    std::cout << "size=" << size << " L=" << L << std::endl;
    {
        srand( time(0) );
        double * data = new double[size];
        double result = 0.;
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        for( int l = 0; l < L; l++ ) {
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) data[i] = rand() % 100;
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) result += data[i] * data[i];
        }
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end   = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end - start).count();
        std::cout << "Calculation result is " << sqrt(result) << "\n";
        std::cout << "Duration of C style heap array:    " << duration << "ms\n";
        delete data;
    }

    {
        srand( 1 + time(0) );
        double data[size]; // technically, non-compliant with C++ standard.
        double result = 0.;
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        for( int l = 0; l < L; l++ ) {
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) data[i] = rand() % 100;
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) result += data[i] * data[i];
        }
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end   = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end - start).count();
        std::cout << "Calculation result is " << sqrt(result) << "\n";
        std::cout << "Duration of C99 style stack array: " << duration << "ms\n";
    }

    {
        srand( 2 + time(0) );
        std::vector<double> data( size );
        double result = 0.;
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        for( int l = 0; l < L; l++ ) {
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) data[i] = rand() % 100;
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) result += data[i] * data[i];
        }
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end   = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end - start).count();
        std::cout << "Calculation result is " << sqrt(result) << "\n";
        std::cout << "Duration of std::vector array:     " << duration << "ms\n";
    }

    return 0;
}

不同的优化标志给出不同的答案:

$ g++ -O0 benchmark.cpp 
$ ./a.out 
size=1000000 L=10
Calculation result is 181182
Duration of C style heap array:    118441ms
Calculation result is 181240
Duration of C99 style stack array: 104920ms
Calculation result is 181210
Duration of std::vector array:     124477ms
$g++ -O3 benchmark.cpp
$ ./a.out 
size=1000000 L=10
Calculation result is 181213
Duration of C style heap array:    107803ms
Calculation result is 181198
Duration of C99 style stack array: 87247ms
Calculation result is 181204
Duration of std::vector array:     89083ms
$ g++ -Ofast benchmark.cpp 
$ ./a.out 
size=1000000 L=10
Calculation result is 181164
Duration of C style heap array:    93530ms
Calculation result is 181179
Duration of C99 style stack array: 80620ms
Calculation result is 181191
Duration of std::vector array:     78830ms

您的确切结果会有所不同，但这在我的机器上是非常典型的。

我只是想提一下vector(和smart_ptr)只是原始数组(和原始指针)上的一个薄层。 实际上在连续存储器中向量的访问时间比数组快。 下面的代码显示了初始化和访问向量和数组的结果。

#include <boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define SIZE 20000
int main() {
    srand (time(NULL));
    vector<vector<int>> vector2d;
    vector2d.reserve(SIZE);
    int index(0);
    boost::posix_time::ptime start_total = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - build + access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        vector2d.push_back(vector<int>(SIZE));
    }
    boost::posix_time::ptime start_access = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        index = rand()%SIZE;
        for (int j = 0; j < SIZE; j++) {

            vector2d[index][index]++;
        }
    }
    boost::posix_time::ptime end = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    boost::posix_time::time_duration msdiff = end - start_total;
    cout << "Vector total time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n";
    msdiff = end - start_acess;
    cout << "Vector access time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n"; 


    int index(0);
    int** raw2d = nullptr;
    raw2d = new int*[SIZE];
    start_total = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - build + access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        raw2d[i] = new int[SIZE];
    }
    start_access = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        index = rand()%SIZE;
        for (int j = 0; j < SIZE; j++) {

            raw2d[index][index]++;
        }
    }
    end = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    msdiff = end - start_total;
    cout << "Array total time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n";
    msdiff = end - start_acess;
    cout << "Array access time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n"; 
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        delete [] raw2d[i];
    }
    return 0;
}

输出结果为:

    Vector total time: 925milliseconds.
    Vector access time: 4milliseconds.
    Array total time: 30milliseconds.
    Array access time: 21milliseconds.

所以如果使用得当，速度几乎是一样的。 (正如其他人提到的使用reserve()或resize())。

公平地说，您不能将c++实现与C实现进行比较，即我所说的malloc版本。Malloc不创建对象——它只分配原始内存。然后不调用构造函数就把内存当作对象，这是拙劣的c++(可能是无效的——我把这个问题留给语言律师吧)。

也就是说，简单地将malloc更改为新的Pixel[维度*维度]并自由删除[]个像素，这与您所拥有的Pixel的简单实现没有太大区别。下面是我的盒子(E6600, 64位)上的结果:

UseArray completed in 0.269 seconds
UseVector completed in 1.665 seconds
UseVectorPushBack completed in 7.309 seconds
The whole thing completed in 9.244 seconds

但随着一个微小的变化，情况发生了变化:

Pixel.h

struct Pixel
{
    Pixel();
    Pixel(unsigned char r, unsigned char g, unsigned char b);

    unsigned char r, g, b;
};

Pixel.cc

#include "Pixel.h"

Pixel::Pixel() {}
Pixel::Pixel(unsigned char r, unsigned char g, unsigned char b) 
  : r(r), g(g), b(b) {}

main.cc

#include "Pixel.h"
[rest of test harness without class Pixel]
[UseArray now uses new/delete not malloc/free]

编译如下:

$ g++ -O3 -c -o Pixel.o Pixel.cc
$ g++ -O3 -c -o main.o main.cc
$ g++ -o main main.o Pixel.o

我们得到了非常不同的结果:

UseArray completed in 2.78 seconds
UseVector completed in 1.651 seconds
UseVectorPushBack completed in 7.826 seconds
The whole thing completed in 12.258 seconds

使用Pixel的非内联构造函数，std::vector现在可以击败原始数组。

通过std::vector和std:allocator进行分配的复杂性似乎太多了，无法像简单的新Pixel[n]那样有效地进行优化。然而，我们可以看到问题仅仅是分配而不是vector访问，通过调整几个测试函数来创建vector/数组，将其移到循环之外:

void UseVector()
{
    TestTimer t("UseVector");

    int dimension = 999;
    std::vector<Pixel> pixels;
    pixels.resize(dimension * dimension);

    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
    {
        for(int i = 0; i < dimension * dimension; ++i)
        {
            pixels[i].r = 255;
            pixels[i].g = 0;
            pixels[i].b = 0;
        }
    }
}

and

void UseArray()
{
    TestTimer t("UseArray");

    int dimension = 999;
    Pixel * pixels = new Pixel[dimension * dimension];

    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
    {
        for(int i = 0 ; i < dimension * dimension; ++i)
        {
            pixels[i].r = 255;
            pixels[i].g = 0;
            pixels[i].b = 0;
        }
    }
    delete [] pixels;
}

我们现在得到这些结果:

UseArray completed in 0.254 seconds
UseVector completed in 0.249 seconds
UseVectorPushBack completed in 7.298 seconds
The whole thing completed in 7.802 seconds

从这里我们可以了解到std::vector可以与原始数组进行访问，但是如果你需要多次创建和删除vector/数组，在元素的构造函数没有内联的情况下，创建一个复杂的对象将比创建一个简单的数组花费更多的时间。我不认为这很令人惊讶。