Python faster than C++? How does this happen?
This question already has an answer here:
There isn't anything obvious here. Since Python's written in C, it must use something like printf to implement print . C++ I/O Streams, like cout , are usually implemented in a way that's much slower than printf . If you want to put C++ on a better footing, you can try changing to:
#include <cstdio>
int main()
{
int x=0;
while(x!=1000000)
{
++x;
std::printf("%dn", x);
}
return 0;
}
I did change to using ++x instead of x++ . Years ago people thought that this was a worthwhile "optimization." I will have a heart attack if that change makes any difference in your program's performance (OTOH, I am positive that using std::printf will make a huge difference in runtime performance). Instead, I made the change simply because you aren't paying attention to what the value of x was before you incremented it, so I think it's useful to say that in code.
One of my colleague at work told me that Python code is faster than C++ code and then showed this topic as an example to prove his point. It is now obvious from other answers that what is wrong with the C++ code posted in the question. I still would like to summarize my benchmarks which I did in order to show him how fast a good C++ code can be!
There are two problems with the original C++ code:
It uses std::endl to print a newline in each iteration. That is a very bad idea because std::endl does more stuff than simply printing a newline — it also forces the stream to flush the buffer accumulated so far; flushing is an expensive operation as it has to deal with hardware – the output device. So the first fix is this: if you want to print a newline, just use 'n' .
The second problem is less obvious as it is not seen in the code. It is in the design of C++ streams. By default, C++ streams are synchronized to the C streams after each input and output operation so that your application could mix std::cout and std::printf , and std::cin and std::scanf without any problem. This feature (yes, it is a feature) is not needed in this case so we can disable this, as it has a little runtime overhead (that is not a problem; it doesn't make C++ bad; it is simply a price for the feature). So the second fix is this: std::cout::sync_with_stdio(false);
And here is the final optimized code:
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
int x = 0;
while ( x != 1000000 )
{
++x;
std::cout << x << 'n';
}
}
And compile this with -O3 flags and run (and measure ) as:
$ g++ benchmark.cpp -O3 #compilation
$ time ./a.out #run
//..
real 0m32.175s
user 0m0.088s
sys 0m0.396s
And run and measure python code (posted in the question):
$ time ./benchmark.py
//...
real 0m35.714s
user 0m3.048s
sys 0m4.456s
The user and sys time tell us which one is fast, and by what order .
Hope that helps you to remove your doubts. :-)
I think we need more information, but I would expect you're building an un-optimized build of C++. Try building it with the -O3 flag. (someone who knows GCC better will have more and better recommendations). However, here's some timings from a completely untrustworthy source: http://ideone.com. I ran each 5 times to get some measure of variance on the timing, but only the origonal C++ varied, and not much at that.
Python: http://ideone.com/WBWB9 time: 0.07-0.07s
Your C++: http://ideone.com/tzwQJ time: 0.05-0.06s
Modified C++: http://ideone.com/pXJo3 time: 0.00s-0.00s
As for why my C++ was faster than yours, std::endl forces C++ to flush the buffer immediately. 'n' does the newline without the forced buffer flush, which is much much much faster.
(note: I only ran to 12773, since ideone.com kills processes after they display a certain amount of output, that was the most the server would give me)
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/31508.html