Peter Dimov wrote:

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<C*> to store them in the meantime). The results are even worse than before:

new/delete: 0.08s object_pool: 25.20s

[...]

...

template <template <class, class> class Pool> double Test() { Pool<C> P(CHUNK_SIZE); boost::timer Timer;

std::vector<C*> V; for(int i = 0; i < NUM_ELEMENTS; ++i) { V.push_back(P.construct()); } for(std::vector<C*>::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.

Of course you're right. Obviously I broke the "don't optimize what does not have to be optimized" rule ;-). When creating and deleting 100000 Objects with new/delete takes only 0.1 seconds I won't have to look for something more efficient. I will do what you suggest: write my code and see if it needs optimization. Regards, Klaus