How do “Connie” and “meow” differ from “The Commodore 64 is a great computer”?
(Don’t get me wrong: They are all great strings! 🙂 )
In several implementations, including the Visual C++’s one, the STL string classes are empowered by an interesting optimization: The Small String Optimization (SSO).
What does that mean?
Well, it basically means that small strings get a special treatment. In other words, there’s a difference in how strings like “Connie”, “meow” or “The Commodore 64 is a great computer” are allocated and stored by std::string.
In general, a typical string class allocates the storage for the string’s text dynamically from the heap, using new. In Visual Studio’s C/C++ run-time implementation on Windows, new calls malloc, which calls HeapAlloc (…which may probably call VirtualAlloc). The bottom line is that dynamically-allocating memory with new is a non-trivial task, that does have an overhead, and implies a trip down the Windows memory manager.
So, the std::string class says: “OK, for small strings, instead of taking a trip down the new-malloc-HeapAlloc-etc. “memory lane” 🙂 , let’s do something much faster and cooler! I, the std::string class, will reserve a small chunk of memory, a “small buffer” embedded inside std::string objects, and when strings are small enough, they will be kept (deep-copied) in that buffer, without triggering dynamic memory allocations.”
That’s a big saving! For example, for something like:
there’s no memory allocated on the heap! “Connie” is just stack-allocated. No new, no malloc, no HeapAlloc, no trip down the Windows memory manager.
That’s kind of the equivalent of this C-ish code:
char buffer[ /* some short length */ ]; strcpy_s(buffer, "Connie");
No new, no HeapAlloc, no virtual memory manager overhead! It’s just a simple snappy stack allocation, followed by a string copy.
But there’s more! In fact, having the string’s text embedded inside the std::string object offers great locality, better than chasing pointers to scattered memory blocks allocated on the heap. This is also very good when strings are stored in a std::vector, as small strings are basically stored in contiguous memory locations, and modern CPUs love blasting contiguous data in memory!
Optimizations similar to the SSO can be applied also to other data structures, for example: to vectors. This year’s CppCon had an interesting session discussing that: “High Performance Code 201: Hybrid Data Structures”.
I’ve prepared some C++ code implementing a simple benchmark to measure the effects of SSO. The results I got for 200,000-small-string vectors clearly show a significant advantage of STL strings for small strings. For example: in 64-bit build on an Intel i7 CPU @3.40GHz: vector::push_back time for ATL (CStringW) is 29 ms, while for STL (wstring) it’s just 14 ms: one half! Moreover, sorting times are 135 ms for ATL vs. 77 ms for the STL: again, a big win for the SSO implemented in the STL!