CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++performance
Igor
Igor

Reputation: 148

Weird performance difference between std::unordered_set::find and std::find

I tried comparing performance of std::unordered_set::find and std::find. Contrary to my expectation and rule https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/performance-inefficient-algorithm.html std::find was significantly faster

quick-bench with unordered_set

quick-bench screen

unorder_set contains ints so hash shouldn't be an issue. std::set::find acts as expected and is faster than std::find.

quick-bench with set Can anyone please explain this behaviour? Thank you

Upvotes: 9

Views: 1011

Answers (2)

Jerry Coffin
Jerry Coffin

Reputation: 490808

Some of this also depends on the hardware and the implementation. But to get a clearer idea of what's going on, it can be useful to graph the time taken for a number of different sizes with each.

enter image description here

For this test, I used Microsoft's compiler, so some difference from clang/llvm isn't particularly surprising. Just for grins, I threw in an extra, testing std::lower_bound (after sorting the array, of course) in addition to find, set, and unordered_set.

I also did the testing a bit differently, generating random numbers to fill the container, and a set of 1000 random values to search for in the container. That's (probably) responsible for the less than linear growth at the right end for std:find. Microsoft's random number generator only has a 15-bit range, so with 100,000 elements, we're going to hit every value it can generate well before we've generated 100,000 values, so in the last test, the searching was limited by the range of values we could generate rather than the size of the array.

I suppose if I were ambitious, I'd rewrite it using a better random number generator with a larger range, but I think this is enough to establish the trends, and give a pretty good idea of the expected result from that modification.

Edit: corrected misalignment of data pasted into spreadsheet.

Upvotes: 7

Pablochaches
Pablochaches

Reputation: 1068

The problem is that you chose a set that was too small.

Here is an example with a 1000 elements.

#include <unordered_set>
#include <set>

const static std::unordered_set<int> mySet {
0,
1,
2,
...
998,
999
};

static void UsingSetFind(benchmark::State& state) {
  // Code inside this loop is measured repeatedly
  for (auto _ : state) {
    auto it = mySet.find(435);
    benchmark::DoNotOptimize(it);
  }
}
// Register the function as a benchmark
BENCHMARK(UsingSetFind);

static void UsingStdFind(benchmark::State& state) {
  // Code before the loop is not measured
  for (auto _ : state) {
    auto it = std::find(mySet.begin(), mySet.end(), 345);
    benchmark::DoNotOptimize(it);
  }
}
BENCHMARK(UsingStdFind);

The difference is amazing

mySet.find(435)

Will search it like it was a hash table, really quick. While

std::find(mySet.begin(), mySet.end(), 345);

Will go 1 by 1.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions