一直想知道std中vector和list的效率哪个高些。
于是做了一个简单的测试,对std vector和list的push_back与遍历操作的效率进行比较。
结果如下:
1. push_back操作:连续push_back操作100000个元素,然后clear()。一直重复10000次。
vector耗时13s, list耗时118s
2. 遍历操作:采用迭代器对100000个元素的vector和list遍历,遍历10000次。
vector耗时20s, list耗时15s
可见,如果是有序的添加元素,vector比list的效率要高将近10倍,而采用迭代器遍历元素时则效率相差不大。
附代码:
- #include <iostream>
- #include <vector>
- #include <list>
- #include <ctime>
-
- using namespace std;
-
- class Message
- {
- };
-
- int main()
- {
- vector<Message*> vt;
- list<Message*> lt;
-
- Message *msg = new Message();
- time_t start = time(NULL);
- for (int i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
- vt.clear();
- for (int j = 0; j < 100000; ++j) {
- vt.push_back(msg);
- }
- }
-
- time_t end = time(NULL);
- cout << "vector spend time " << end - start << endl;
-
- start = time(NULL);
- for (int i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
- lt.clear();
- for (int j = 0; j < 100000; ++j) {
- lt.push_back(msg);
- }
- }
-
- end = time(NULL);
- cout << "list spend time " << end - start << endl;
- delete msg;
- msg = NULL;
-
- start = time(NULL);
- for (int i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
- typeof(vt.begin()) it = vt.begin();
- while (it != vt.end()) {
- msg = *it;
- ++it;
- }
- }
-
- end = time(NULL);
- cout << "vector spend time " << end - start << endl;
-
- start = time(NULL);
- for (int i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {
- typeof(lt.begin()) it = lt.begin();
- while (it != lt.end()) {
- msg = *it;
- ++it;
- }
- }
-
- end = time(NULL);
- cout << "list spend time " << end - start << endl;
-
- return 0;
- }
输出:
vector spend time 13
list spend time 118
vector spend time 20
list spend time 15