好问题。我来这里是希望能找到一些简单的方法来加快矢量测试的速度。结果跟我想象的不太一样!

优化有帮助，但这还不够。通过优化，我仍然看到UseArray和UseVector之间的2X性能差异。有趣的是，UseVector明显比没有优化的UseVectorPushBack慢。

# g++ -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -o vector vector.cpp
# ./vector
UseArray completed in 20.68 seconds
UseVector completed in 120.509 seconds
UseVectorPushBack completed in 37.654 seconds
The whole thing completed in 178.845 seconds
# g++ -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -O3 -o vector vector.cpp
# ./vector
UseArray completed in 3.09 seconds
UseVector completed in 6.09 seconds
UseVectorPushBack completed in 9.847 seconds
The whole thing completed in 19.028 seconds

想法1 -使用new[]代替malloc

我尝试在UseArray中将malloc()更改为new[]，以便构造对象。从单个字段分配到分配一个Pixel实例。哦，重命名内循环变量为j。

void UseArray()
{
    TestTimer t("UseArray");

    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
    {   
        int dimension = 999;

        // Same speed as malloc().
        Pixel * pixels = new Pixel[dimension * dimension];

        for(int j = 0 ; j < dimension * dimension; ++j)
            pixels[j] = Pixel(255, 0, 0);

        delete[] pixels;
    }
}

令人惊讶的是(对我来说)，这些变化没有任何不同。甚至没有更改为new[]，这将默认构造所有的像素。看起来gcc在使用new[]时可以优化默认构造函数调用，但在使用vector时就不行。

想法#2 -删除重复的操作符[]调用

我还尝试摆脱三重运算符[]查找，并缓存对像素[j]的引用。这实际上降低了UseVector的速度!哦。

for(int j = 0; j < dimension * dimension; ++j)
{
    // Slower than accessing pixels[j] three times.
    Pixel &pixel = pixels[j];
    pixel.r = 255;
    pixel.g = 0;
    pixel.b = 0;
}

# ./vector 
UseArray completed in 3.226 seconds
UseVector completed in 7.54 seconds
UseVectorPushBack completed in 9.859 seconds
The whole thing completed in 20.626 seconds

想法#3 -删除构造函数

如果完全删除构造函数呢?然后，也许gcc可以在创建向量时优化所有对象的结构。如果我们把像素改为:

struct Pixel
{
    unsigned char r, g, b;
};

结果:大约快10%。还是比数组慢。嗯。

# ./vector 
UseArray completed in 3.239 seconds
UseVector completed in 5.567 seconds

想法4 -使用迭代器而不是循环索引

如何使用vector<Pixel>::iterator代替循环索引?

for (std::vector<Pixel>::iterator j = pixels.begin(); j != pixels.end(); ++j)
{
    j->r = 255;
    j->g = 0;
    j->b = 0;
}

结果:

# ./vector 
UseArray completed in 3.264 seconds
UseVector completed in 5.443 seconds

没有什么不同。至少没有变慢。我认为这将具有类似于#2的性能，其中我使用了Pixel&引用。

结论

即使一些聪明的cookie找到了如何使vector循环和数组循环一样快的方法，这也不能说明std::vector的默认行为。编译器足够聪明，可以优化所有c++特性，并使STL容器像原始数组一样快。

底线是，当使用std::vector时，编译器无法优化掉无操作的默认构造函数调用。如果你使用普通的new[]，它就能很好地优化它们。但不是std::vector。即使你可以重写你的代码，以消除构造函数调用，在这里的咒语:“编译器比你聪明。STL和普通c一样快，不用担心。”

这似乎取决于编译器标志。下面是一个基准代码:

#include <chrono>
#include <cmath>
#include <ctime>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>


int main(){

    int size = 1000000; // reduce this number in case your program crashes
    int L = 10;

    std::cout << "size=" << size << " L=" << L << std::endl;
    {
        srand( time(0) );
        double * data = new double[size];
        double result = 0.;
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        for( int l = 0; l < L; l++ ) {
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) data[i] = rand() % 100;
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) result += data[i] * data[i];
        }
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end   = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end - start).count();
        std::cout << "Calculation result is " << sqrt(result) << "\n";
        std::cout << "Duration of C style heap array:    " << duration << "ms\n";
        delete data;
    }

    {
        srand( 1 + time(0) );
        double data[size]; // technically, non-compliant with C++ standard.
        double result = 0.;
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        for( int l = 0; l < L; l++ ) {
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) data[i] = rand() % 100;
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) result += data[i] * data[i];
        }
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end   = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end - start).count();
        std::cout << "Calculation result is " << sqrt(result) << "\n";
        std::cout << "Duration of C99 style stack array: " << duration << "ms\n";
    }

    {
        srand( 2 + time(0) );
        std::vector<double> data( size );
        double result = 0.;
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        for( int l = 0; l < L; l++ ) {
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) data[i] = rand() % 100;
            for( int i = 0; i < size; i++ ) result += data[i] * data[i];
        }
        std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end   = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
        auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end - start).count();
        std::cout << "Calculation result is " << sqrt(result) << "\n";
        std::cout << "Duration of std::vector array:     " << duration << "ms\n";
    }

    return 0;
}

不同的优化标志给出不同的答案:

$ g++ -O0 benchmark.cpp 
$ ./a.out 
size=1000000 L=10
Calculation result is 181182
Duration of C style heap array:    118441ms
Calculation result is 181240
Duration of C99 style stack array: 104920ms
Calculation result is 181210
Duration of std::vector array:     124477ms
$g++ -O3 benchmark.cpp
$ ./a.out 
size=1000000 L=10
Calculation result is 181213
Duration of C style heap array:    107803ms
Calculation result is 181198
Duration of C99 style stack array: 87247ms
Calculation result is 181204
Duration of std::vector array:     89083ms
$ g++ -Ofast benchmark.cpp 
$ ./a.out 
size=1000000 L=10
Calculation result is 181164
Duration of C style heap array:    93530ms
Calculation result is 181179
Duration of C99 style stack array: 80620ms
Calculation result is 181191
Duration of std::vector array:     78830ms

您的确切结果会有所不同，但这在我的机器上是非常典型的。

试试这个:

void UseVectorCtor()
{
    TestTimer t("UseConstructor");

    for(int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
    {
        int dimension = 999;

        std::vector<Pixel> pixels(dimension * dimension, Pixel(255, 0, 0));
    }
}

我得到了和数组几乎完全一样的性能。

The thing about vector is that it's a much more general tool than an array. And that means you have to consider how you use it. It can be used in a lot of different ways, providing functionality that an array doesn't even have. And if you use it "wrong" for your purpose, you incur a lot of overhead, but if you use it correctly, it is usually basically a zero-overhead data structure. In this case, the problem is that you separately initialized the vector (causing all elements to have their default ctor called), and then overwriting each element individually with the correct value. That is much harder for the compiler to optimize away than when you do the same thing with an array. Which is why the vector provides a constructor which lets you do exactly that: initialize N elements with value X.

当你使用它时，向量和数组一样快。

所以，你还没有打破性能神话。但是你已经证明了只有当你最优地使用向量时它才成立，这也是一个很好的观点。：）

好的一面是，它确实是最简单的用法，但却是最快的。如果您将我的代码片段(一行)与John Kugelman的答案进行对比，其中包含大量的调整和优化，但仍然不能完全消除性能差异，很明显，vector的设计非常巧妙。你不必费尽周折才能得到等于数组的速度。相反，您必须使用最简单的解决方案。

我只是想提一下vector(和smart_ptr)只是原始数组(和原始指针)上的一个薄层。 实际上在连续存储器中向量的访问时间比数组快。 下面的代码显示了初始化和访问向量和数组的结果。

#include <boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#define SIZE 20000
int main() {
    srand (time(NULL));
    vector<vector<int>> vector2d;
    vector2d.reserve(SIZE);
    int index(0);
    boost::posix_time::ptime start_total = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - build + access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        vector2d.push_back(vector<int>(SIZE));
    }
    boost::posix_time::ptime start_access = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        index = rand()%SIZE;
        for (int j = 0; j < SIZE; j++) {

            vector2d[index][index]++;
        }
    }
    boost::posix_time::ptime end = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    boost::posix_time::time_duration msdiff = end - start_total;
    cout << "Vector total time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n";
    msdiff = end - start_acess;
    cout << "Vector access time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n"; 


    int index(0);
    int** raw2d = nullptr;
    raw2d = new int*[SIZE];
    start_total = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - build + access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        raw2d[i] = new int[SIZE];
    }
    start_access = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    //  timer start - access
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        index = rand()%SIZE;
        for (int j = 0; j < SIZE; j++) {

            raw2d[index][index]++;
        }
    }
    end = boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::local_time();
    msdiff = end - start_total;
    cout << "Array total time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n";
    msdiff = end - start_acess;
    cout << "Array access time: " << msdiff.total_milliseconds() << "milliseconds.\n"; 
    for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
        delete [] raw2d[i];
    }
    return 0;
}

输出结果为:

    Vector total time: 925milliseconds.
    Vector access time: 4milliseconds.
    Array total time: 30milliseconds.
    Array access time: 21milliseconds.

所以如果使用得当，速度几乎是一样的。 (正如其他人提到的使用reserve()或resize())。

GNU's STL (and others), given vector<T>(n), default constructs a prototypal object T() - the compiler will optimise away the empty constructor - but then a copy of whatever garbage happened to be in the memory addresses now reserved for the object is taken by the STL's __uninitialized_fill_n_aux, which loops populating copies of that object as the default values in the vector. So, "my" STL is not looping constructing, but constructing then loop/copying. It's counter intuitive, but I should have remembered as I commented on a recent stackoverflow question about this very point: the construct/copy can be more efficient for reference counted objects etc..

So:

vector<T> x(n);

or

vector<T> x;
x.resize(n);

是-在许多STL实现中-类似于:

T temp;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
    x[i] = temp;

The issue being that the current generation of compiler optimisers don't seem to work from the insight that temp is uninitialised garbage, and fail to optimise out the loop and default copy constructor invocations. You could credibly argue that compilers absolutely shouldn't optimise this away, as a programmer writing the above has a reasonable expectation that all the objects will be identical after the loop, even if garbage (usual caveats about 'identical'/operator== vs memcmp/operator= etc apply). The compiler can't be expected to have any extra insight into the larger context of std::vector<> or the later usage of the data that would suggest this optimisation safe.

这可以与更明显的直接实现形成对比:

for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
    x[i] = T();

我们可以期待一个编译器优化。

为了更明确地解释vector行为的这一方面，可以考虑:

std::vector<big_reference_counted_object> x(10000);

显然，如果我们创建10000个独立对象，而不是创建10000个引用相同数据的对象，这是一个很大的区别。有一种合理的观点认为，保护普通c++用户不意外地做一些如此昂贵的事情的好处超过了现实世界中难以优化的拷贝构造的非常小的成本。

原始答案(供参考/理解评论): 没有机会。Vector和数组一样快，至少如果你合理地保留空间. ...

下面是vector中的push_back方法的工作原理:

vector在初始化时分配X个空间。 如下所述，它检查当前底层数组中是否有空间用于该项。 它复制push_back调用中的项。

调用push_back X项后:

vector将kX的空间重新分配到第二个数组中。 它将第一个数组的项复制到第二个数组。 丢弃第一个数组。 现在使用第二个数组作为存储，直到它达到kX项。

重复。如果你没有预留空间，它肯定会变慢。更重要的是，如果复制项目的成本很高，那么像这样的“push_back”会让你生吞活剥。

至于向量和数组的区别，我同意其他人的观点。在发布版中运行，打开优化，并放入更多的标志，这样微软的友好人员就不会为你而烦恼了。

还有一件事，如果你不需要调整大小，使用Boost.Array。