benchmark VS map_benchmark

I'm aware of one by Google that I used a couple times, but IMO it's better to capture real runtime data from a fully-operational process than to carve out the benchmarkable bits and test them in isolation, so I track information during program testing and print it all to a log instead of using things like that.

If you just want to do some quick benchmarks, you can just use std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(). Call it before the code that you are benchmarking and then immediately after. Take them away and you have your duration. If you want to use a proper benchmarking tool then I can totally recommend Google Benchmark. Fantastic benchmarking tool. Honourable mention would be Quick Bench which is an online tool that uses Google Benchmark.

I tried to install google benchmark(https://github.com/google/benchmark) in my ubuntu machine by :

We don't know if it's a lie until we verify it and that's not difficult, you have a quicksort implementation in a couple of languages, you'll need to pass the necessary parameters to show the time needed by a function call to execute to the compiler or interpreter or you may use use a library(like benchmark for C++) and you're good to go.

If you are uncertain about the performance characteristics of a function you should ALWAYS benchmark it. Googles Benchmark library is wonderful for quick micro benchmarks. For more complex things, perhaps look into profiling and then look at invocation counts of copy constructors.

Your compiler may be optimising away your loop, there. I typically use a micro-benchmarking tool for these types of tests. You could try Google Benchmark. It’s available in most OS’ package managers, but pretty easy to build from source if not

C++: C++ has quite a number of benchmarking libraries some of the recent ones involving C++ 20's flexibility. The most notable being Google Bench and UT. C does not have many specific benchmarking libraries, but you can easily integrate C code with C++ benchmarking libraries in order to test the performance of your C code.

I tied adding the maps to the [1] benchmark, but I wasn't able to, since they aren't type generic yet. You may want to benchmark against [2], and [3] which are the best performing ones in the above benchmark.

[1] https://github.com/martinus/map_benchmark/

[2] https://github.com/TheNumbat/hashtables/blob/main/code/robin...

[3] https://github.com/ktprime/ktprime

In any case, I guess you can find some inspiration in this comparison of maps which was posted to /r/cpp a couple of months ago: https://martin.ankerl.com/2022/08/27/hashmap-bench-01/ (source code for the benchmark seems to be on https://github.com/martinus/map_benchmark ). It's made for maps but adjusting most benchmarks for other containers should be fairly straightforward.

There is no such thing as best random generator. They have so many different properties, e.g. is it cryptographic secure, how large is the state, how fast on x86 architecture, can it jump forward, etc. My go-to generator is sfc64 because it's fast, simple, and seems to produce high quality random numbers. Here is one implementation: https://github.com/martinus/map_benchmark/blob/master/src/app/sfc64.h other popular generators are PCG and xorshift

I've implemented this PoolAllocator which does exactly this: https://github.com/martinus/map_benchmark/blob/master/src/app/pool.h

Hi Martin, thanks for the pointer! BTW, I think we may use your impressive benchmark suite to test our advances once we come up with something worth deep testing.