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。

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. ...

使用正确的选项，向量和数组可以生成相同的asm。在这些情况下，它们的速度当然是一样的，因为无论哪种方式都可以得到相同的可执行文件。

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。

我的笔记本电脑是联想G770 (4gb内存)。

操作系统为Windows 7 64位(笔记本电脑版本)

编译器是MinGW 4.6.1。

IDE为Code::Blocks。

我测试了第一篇文章的源代码。

结果

O2优化

UseArray完成用时2.841秒

UseVector在2.548秒内完成

UseVectorPushBack在11.95秒内完成

全程用时17.342秒

系统暂停

O3优化

UseArray完成用时1.452秒

UseVector在2.514秒内完成

UseVectorPushBack在12.967秒内完成

全程用时16.937秒

在O3优化下，向量的性能更差。

如果你把循环改为

    pixels[i].r = i;
    pixels[i].g = i;
    pixels[i].b = i;

在O2和O3下，数组和矢量的速度几乎相同。

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())。