Klaus Nowikow wrote:
I changed the test program (see below). Now I use object_pool<> to create and destroy a number of elements (I use a vector
to store them in the meantime). The results are even worse than before: new/delete: 0.08s object_pool: 25.20s
[...]
template class Pool> double Test() { Pool<C> P(CHUNK_SIZE); boost::timer Timer;
std::vector
V; for(int i = 0; i < NUM_ELEMENTS; ++i) { V.push_back(P.construct()); } for(std::vector ::iterator pos = V.begin(), end = V.end(); pos != end; ++pos) { P.destroy(*pos); } return Timer.elapsed(); }
Your test is still very unrealistic. You create a large number of objects in one batch, then destroy them afterwards. A more realistic scenario would have creation and destruction interleaved. The most accurate test would be to try Boost.Pool with your actual application and see how it affects its real-world performance. It's still possible for it to be slower, of course, but at least you'd measure the real thing.