Using scanf() in C++ programs is faster than using cin?
I don't know if this is true, but when I was reading FAQ on one of the problem providing sites, I found something, that poke my attention:
Check your input/output methods. In C++, using cin and cout is too slow. Use these, and you will guarantee not being able to solve any problem with a decent amount of input or output. Use printf and scanf instead.
Can someone please clarify this? Is really using scanf() in C++ programs faster than using cin >> something ? If yes, that is it a good practice to use it in C++ programs? I thought that it was C specific, though I am just learning C++...
Here's a quick test of a simple case: a program to read a list of numbers from standard input and XOR all of the numbers.
iostream version:
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int parity = 0;
int x;
while (std::cin >> x)
parity ^= x;
std::cout << parity << std::endl;
return 0;
}
scanf version:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int parity = 0;
int x;
while (1 == scanf("%d", &x))
parity ^= x;
printf("%dn", parity);
return 0;
}
Results
Using a third program, I generated a text file containing 33,280,276 random numbers. The execution times are:
iostream version: 24.3 seconds
scanf version: 6.4 seconds
Changing the compiler's optimization settings didn't seem to change the results much at all.
Thus: there really is a speed difference.
EDIT: User clyfish points out below that the speed difference is largely due to the iostream I/O functions maintaining synchronization with the CI/O functions. We can turn this off with a call to std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false); :
#include <iostream>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int parity = 0;
int x;
std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
while (std::cin >> x)
parity ^= x;
std::cout << parity << std::endl;
return 0;
}
New results:
iostream version: 21.9 seconds
scanf version: 6.8 seconds
iostream with sync_with_stdio(false): 5.5 seconds
C++ iostream wins! It turns out that this internal syncing / flushing is what normally slows down iostream i/o. If we're not mixing cstdio and iostream, we can turn it off, and then iostream is fastest.
The code: https://gist.github.com/3845568
http://www.quora.com/Is-cin-cout-slower-than-scanf-printf/answer/Aditya-Vishwakarma
Performance of cin/cout can be slow because they need to keep themselves in sync with the underlying C library. This is essential if both C IO and C++ IO is going to be used.
However, if you only going to use C++ IO, then simply use the below line before any IO ops
std::ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
For more info on this, look at libstdc++ docs on this: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/io_and_c.html
Probably scanf is somewhat faster than using streams. Although streams provide a lot of type safety, and do not have to parse format strings at runtime, it usually has an advantage of not requiring excessive memory allocations (this depends on your compiler and runtime). That said, unless performance is your only end goal and you are in the critical path then you should really favour the safer (slower) methods.
There is a very delicious article written here by Herb Sutter "The String Formatters of Manor Farm" who goes into a lot of detail of the performance of string formatters like sscanf and lexical_cast and what kind of things were making them run slowly or quickly. This is kind of analogous, probably to the kind of things that would affect performance between C style IO and C++ style. The main difference with the formatters tended to be the type safety and the number of memory allocations.
上一篇: 为什么要避免铸造？