https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/4228 <p> The Boost.Fusion documentation states that associative containers provide efficient key-based access while this seems not to be so in reality (AFAICT the associative containers actually use vectors for their implementation). </p> <p> As reported in this post <a class="ext-link" href="http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/05/166358.php"><span class="icon">​</span>http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2010/05/166358.php</a> I have achieved meassurably better compile-time performance when using plain fusion::vectors with linear searches than with fusion::maps. Attached are two simple tests that try to demonstrate this (Steven Watanabe's template profiler 'says' that both approaches yield the same number of template instantiations). </p> <p> The reason that in my real life (much more complicated) project I get not only same but better performance with vectors might perhaps be that the find&lt;&gt; (linear search) on the 'main vector' might already be 'cached'/instantiated by some other operation. </p> en-us /htdocs/site/boost.png https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/4228 Trac 1.4.3 Domagoj Šarić Mon, 17 May 2010 15:34:11 GMT https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/4228 https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/4228 <ul> <li><strong>attachment</strong> → <span class="trac-field-new">test_map.cpp</span> </li> </ul> Ticket Domagoj Šarić Mon, 17 May 2010 15:34:24 GMT https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/4228 https://svn.boost.org/trac10/ticket/4228 <ul> <li><strong>attachment</strong> → <span class="trac-field-new">test_vector.cpp</span> </li> </ul> Ticket Joel de Guzman Wed, 09 Apr 2014 02:08:43 GMT