> If you're counting pennies, Vec::reserve() (inexact) is hardly what you want, because in the worst case you're wasting a factor of 1.5x or 2x of elements due up-front overallocation.
I think this is "Trump math" but assuming we're actually looking at the same over-allocation this isn't new, what you're calling "wasting a factor of 2x" was already what you were paying by using the amortized O(1) growable array type, that's its central trade off, so yeah, the type with that property does still have that property.
> Maybe chunk lists could be better, overhead is bounded by chunk size and all operations are constant-time.
Basically std::deque. Surely no more need be said ?
> was already what you were paying by using the amortized O(1) growable array type
As I said, I don't think growable array data structure is a good idea.
> Basically std::deque. Surely no more need be said ?
Ok now you're really out of your depth here. Pretty sure you haven't actually used it, it's a somewhat obscure data structure even though the more serious C++ programmers have heard of it, most have probably never used it.
From a web search, std::deque seems to be pretty universally thought of as a weird and very bad data structure. I've had to learn myself because I did actually try to use it myself recently. Beyond being unintuitive to use due to being "abstract" (had 2-3 serious bugs, e.g. unexpected iterator invalidations that happened only under load), apparently std::deque is not even specified as a chunk list. O(1) random access must be guaranteed. So it must be much more complicated than that, I don't know the details though.
And while actual implementations do use chunks in some way (just not in a simple chunk list), apparently "chunks" is not a part of the std::deque spec, and hence there isn't anything standardized about the size of these chunks either.
- On MSVC, chunk size is 16 elements so chunk size of std::deque char is 16 BYTES !!!!! I was thinking they can't be serious, but apprently it is the case
> As I said, I don't think growable array data structure is a good idea.
It is still quite hard for me to take this seriously as a belief.
> Ok now you're really out of your depth here.
I don't think so. As you found, the consensus is that this sort of thing is a terrible idea. The O(1) complexity looks good superficially but your actual performance is miserable.
> I don't know the details though.
Raymond Chen has a pretty good explanation of the three implementations of std::deque, like he did for their std::string but Raymond's goal is to help you do forensics, he's not here to tell us which data structures are a good idea. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20230810-00/?p=10... might work, or, given Microsoft, it might already be dead by the time you click it.
Without knowing more about the details of the spec and of real world implementations [0], I'll boldly claim that the O(1) is the precise problem why this is a weird data structure (I never needed or expected that sort of constraint). It is not a chunk list, like many (including me) seem to have assumed.
I don't even have performance problems measured with this, also given that my std::deque is not currently in production, it is used as a simple streaming queue that only has a couple megabytes/second of bandwidth requirements, and it is not being built with MSVC (so chunks are going to be 512 or 4096 bytes). But it is a latent problem.
[0] Btw. I don't want to know the messy details of this right now, I need simple not complex. I've learned not to add more complexity in a futile attempt to fix things that are fundamentally broken. What use case is this going to be solved by std::deque, name me one such use case and tell me with a straight face that it's not a completely made up case or a super niche case that would likely also be better served by a different approach.
Or take it from someone else if you would, is Chandler Carruth high-profile enough and free enough of conflict of interest to be credible for saying that std::deque is dumb? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22962980
> It is not a chunk list, like many (including me) seem to have assumed.
The thing C++ programmers tend to expect (though perhaps not you) is Rust's std::collections::VecDeque - the growable array type again but used as backing for a ring buffer.
This type has amortized O(1) push and pop at both ends, I assume since you didn't like the amortized growth of Vec / std::vector you'll feel the same way but that's what most programmers actually want from such a type - in use as a queue it won't repeatedly cycle allocations so long as the size is constrained, because it's a ring buffer. If you actually know the needed size up front the overhead from this structure, which can grow, versus a structure which can't grow, is a single integer for the capacity.
But as you saw, std::deque is... not that. STL wasn't able to explain what it's for when I asked him, so, if anybody knows it apparently doesn't include the people maintaining the C++ standard library implementations.
> Or take it from someone else if you would
I think the trouble here is that you've misconstrued this entire part of the conversation. I was gesturing at std::deque because it's terrible, and your response, that it's terrible, isn't a rebuttal as I think you're expecting. We agree on that, std::deque is terrible, our disagreement seems to be that you think a slightly different terrible data structure would be a good idea somehow and I do not.
I don't know the size up front because it goes up and down depending on load. I want to be able to buffer jitters/spikes but not hog memory when there is no data in the queue. I was assuming it's natural to want a simple linked list of chunks to represent this, maybe chunks can be partially full here. So chunk -> chunk -> chunk, and each chunk is actually a node with a buffer pointer + size + fill fields, or maybe the data comes directly after the size + fill fields so no buffer pointer needed.
That easily gives O(1) access to enqueue/dequeue, and the queue naturally grows and shrinks (even within configurable bounds) as part of reading and writing. Blocks can be taken and returned from/to some fixed size block pool. This design would be completely satisfactory. It's also very easy to code from scratch, so why should I settle for anything less, for example a growable vector where a reallocation would mean blocking other threads for extended time? But I was told to "not reinvent the wheel" and to "not overengineer it" so I tried to change my mind and make use of an STL container data structure.
> our disagreement seems to be that you think a slightly different terrible data structure would be a good idea
I don't know why you think that I would be thinking that, and I'm confused that you say you were gesturing at how std::deque is terrible, and not sure why I should be the one misconstruing something, when my premise from the beginning was "STL containers are terrible in many ways". And I don't get at all why you responded with "basically std::deque" to my "maybe chunk lists would better". It doesn't make the least bit of sense to me.
But let's settle this here, this is a pointless fight...
> I was assuming it's natural to want a simple linked list of chunks
In the 1970s or 1980s that does feel entirely natural, but in the 1990s the 68040 and i486 both introduce L1 data cache and so now all list chasing hurts very badly, your structure is a list chase any time we index into the collection.
I think I can see a way to have what you're describing hit amortized O(1) push/ pop with the spikes which are amortized being more frequent (linear with capacity) but fixed size and smaller (allocate or free one block then do some housekeeping), it costs more RAM because of the block overhead and it is no longer contiguous, but I see that for your intended application you probably don't care about either problem.
Now that I think I understand your data structure better it's much less similar to std::deque than I had originally thought, it does seem very niche to me, but more power to you if you write such a type.
Yes, I am talking about a buffer for an outbound queue that should buffer on the order of MB/sec. That's decidedly not a niche thing. It's very basic systems engineering (and also how socket buffers are represented in a kernel for example).
You would chunk this at a reasonable size, at least multiple kilobytes per chunk. That is not slow, it is basically the only way to do it. Yes, that is amortized, bounded overhead. Sure it costs a bit of extra RAM, like one extra pointer and maybe 1-2 integers per chunk? For chunks of 4 KB, this overhead is predictably less than 1 % plus less than 1 chunk worth of fragmentation in the last chunk. That is NOT unpredictable spikes of > 100 percent during reallocation or 100000 percent due to low utilisation...
I believe you can even instruct the CPU to preload the next buffer while still streaming the last, but personally have never had the need to dive _that_ deep. It would probably be very hard to measure any performance benefit from doing so. I like to write very basic straightforward C code, just solve the data structure problem first, not hand-wave it.
I think this is "Trump math" but assuming we're actually looking at the same over-allocation this isn't new, what you're calling "wasting a factor of 2x" was already what you were paying by using the amortized O(1) growable array type, that's its central trade off, so yeah, the type with that property does still have that property.
> Maybe chunk lists could be better, overhead is bounded by chunk size and all operations are constant-time.
Basically std::deque. Surely no more need be said ?