C++ Stringstream Vs Sprintf Performance at Steven Waddy blog

C++ Stringstream Vs Sprintf Performance. It starts being 4x slower than snprintf at one thread, and goes up to be hundred. much faster than std::string. it would be better to use one std::ostringstream::str() to make the data sequential at once compared to multiple. boost.format internally goes through streams which internally go through sprintf ending up with rather big overhead. if i want to do an unformatted output, i would need to then convert the number to a string myself, then call ostream.write(). you would never prefer sprintf over streams, but you might consider snprintf (or _snprintf for ms compilers) in. The author of this benchmark would optimize the sprintf. You could also use &str[0]. the standard way of sprintf(), std::stringstream, often provides poor performance. The first is that a cstring. in c++11, std::string is guaranteed to have a contiguous array of memory, whereas in c++03, it is not. both can be used to achieve a few similar goals (e.g. Std::ostringstream is not required to be slower, but it is generally slower when. the c++ library has long been organized around stream classes, at least when it comes to reading and parsing. c++ stringstream performance and scaling is really bad.

you would never prefer sprintf over streams, but you might consider snprintf (or _snprintf for ms compilers) in. the standard way of sprintf(), std::stringstream, often provides poor performance. the c++ library has long been organized around stream classes, at least when it comes to reading and parsing. both can be used to achieve a few similar goals (e.g. much faster than std::string. boost.format internally goes through streams which internally go through sprintf ending up with rather big overhead. a stringstream writes into a stringbuffer, which usually means a linked list of buffers. The first is that a cstring. The author of this benchmark would optimize the sprintf. if i want to do an unformatted output, i would need to then convert the number to a string myself, then call ostream.write().

vc6.0/vs2010/vs2012/vs2013等的bug——sprintf，sprintf_s_vs中sprintfCSDN博客

C++ Stringstream Vs Sprintf Performance There are two main reasons why people use cstring over std:string. the c++ library has long been organized around stream classes, at least when it comes to reading and parsing. boost.format internally goes through streams which internally go through sprintf ending up with rather big overhead. you would never prefer sprintf over streams, but you might consider snprintf (or _snprintf for ms compilers) in. It starts being 4x slower than snprintf at one thread, and goes up to be hundred. in c++11, std::string is guaranteed to have a contiguous array of memory, whereas in c++03, it is not. The first is that a cstring. a stringstream writes into a stringbuffer, which usually means a linked list of buffers. Std::ostringstream is not required to be slower, but it is generally slower when. You could also use &str[0]. both can be used to achieve a few similar goals (e.g. the standard way of sprintf(), std::stringstream, often provides poor performance. The author of this benchmark would optimize the sprintf. much faster than std::string. c++ stringstream performance and scaling is really bad. It was designed as part of a large database so it is very fast and good.