yes, in fact especially then, probably due to caching. 2015-01-27 9:47 GMT+01:00 Daniel França <[email protected]>:
> is QVector faster even for sequential access? > On Tue 27 Jan 2015 at 09:42 Mark Gaiser <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Felix morack <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> hello, >>> >>> >>> i recently gained a small, but considerable performance boost by >>> switching out QList for QVector in some legacy code. This is hindered by >>> the fact that Qt itself often returns QList, eg with QMap::values(). >>> >>> >>> Is there a reason for this? Why arent QVectors used? >>> >>> >>> A somewhat related question, why is there no QList::reserve()? I guess i >>> see how that function might not make much sense from an algorithmic pov, >>> but shouldnt it at least be there as a NoOp to make it easy switching >>> between data structures? >>> >>> >>> best regards, >>> >>> As far as i know this is for historic reasons. QList used to be faster >> then QVector (someone, please correct me if i'm wrong) in the old days, but >> nowadays (Qt5 era) they prefer QVector over QList. It is as fast or faster >> then QList in nearly every situation. I vaguely remember there being one >> exception where QList was faster, but i don't know the exception anymore. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Interest mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest >> >
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
