上次有了B-树的两种不同的实现,现在我们来测试一下两种实现的效率,由于命名一样,我设置了不同的名字空间,下面是测试代码:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <cmath>
#include <ctime>
#include "BTree.h"
#include "BTree2.h"
using namespace std;
const int maxcnt = 1000000;
int r[maxcnt];
int order[maxcnt];
int main()
{
int i;
clock_t start,finish;
double totaltime;
srand( time(NULL) );
for ( i = 0; i < maxcnt; ++ i )
r[i] = rand();
namespace2::BTree<int, int, 6> tree2;
BTree<int, int, 3> tree;
cout << "test insertion..." << endl;
start = clock();
for ( i = 0; i < maxcnt; ++ i )
tree.Insert( r[i], r[i] );
finish = clock();
cout << "算法导论: " << (double)(finish-start)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC << " " << "split count: " << tree.SplitCnt << endl;
start = clock();
for ( i = 0; i < maxcnt; ++ i )
tree2.Insert( r[i], r[i] );
finish = clock();
cout << "回溯版本: " << (double)(finish-start)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC << " " << "split count: " << tree2.SplitCnt << endl;
cout << "test deletion..." << endl;
srand( time(NULL) );
for ( i = 0; i < maxcnt; ++ i )
order[i] = rand()%maxcnt;
start = clock();
for ( i = 0; i < maxcnt; ++ i )
tree.Delete( r[ order[i] ] );
finish = clock();
cout << "算法导论: " << (double)(finish-start)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC << " " << "merge count: " << tree.MergeCnt
<< " from key: " << tree.FromCnt << " total cnt: " << tree.MergeCnt+tree.FromCnt << endl;
start = clock();
for ( i = 0; i < maxcnt; ++ i )
tree2.Delete( r[ order[i] ] );
finish = clock();
cout << "回溯版本: " << (double)(finish-start)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC << " " << "merge count: " << tree2.MergeCnt
<< " from key: " << tree2.FromCnt << " total cnt: " << tree2.MergeCnt+tree2.FromCnt << endl;
return 0;
}
结果如下:
test insertion...
算法导论: 1.151 split count: 18922
回溯版本: 0.952 split count: 9857
test deletion...
算法导论: 0.552 merge count: 13615 from key: 227703 total cnt: 241318
回溯版本: 0.804 merge count: 5131 from key: 6516 total cnt: 11647
再次运行,结果如下:
test insertion...
算法导论: 1.286 split count: 18844
回溯版本: 0.919 split count: 9875
test deletion...
算法导论: 0.579 merge count: 13523 from key: 291994 total cnt: 305517
回溯版本: 0.809 merge count: 5166 from key: 6503 total cnt: 11669
有点不明白的是,回溯版本明明比《算法导论》版本少了很多的节点合并和“借”关键字次数,可运行的时间反而比《算法导论》版本高,估计我代码里实现的不够高效。