...one of the most highly
regarded and expertly designed C++ library projects in the
world. — Herb Sutter and Andrei
The performance of Boost.Convert depends entirely on the performance of the converter deployed. A few converters have been tested for string conversions to basic types and to a user-defined type.
In turn, the performance of every particular converter depends on the platform,
the compiler used and the particular implementation of the underlying conversion
Boost.Spirit, etc.). Consequently, the results below
are only an approximate indication of relative performance
of the mentioned converters on the tested platforms.
When compiled with gcc-5.4.0 on 64-bit Ubuntu 16.04, tests produced the following results:
str-to-int: spirit/strtol/lcast/scanf/stream= 0.27/ 0.35/ 0.92/ 2.11/ 2.09 seconds. str-to-lng: spirit/strtol/lcast/scanf/stream= 0.69/ 0.31/ 1.28/ 2.07/ 2.50 seconds. str-to-dbl: spirit/strtol/lcast/scanf/stream= 0.73/ 1.06/ 7.95/ 2.87/ 5.10 seconds. int-to-str: spirit/strtol/lcast/prntf/stream= 1.96/ 1.39/ 2.52/ 3.49/ 2.58 seconds. lng-to-str: spirit/strtol/lcast/prntf/stream= 2.45/ 1.51/ 2.32/ 3.30/ 2.63 seconds. dbl-to-str: spirit/strtol/lcast/prntf/stream= 6.62/ 4.46/ 28.69/ 20.60/ 14.16 seconds.
Based on the results, all things considered, I tend to conclude that there is no clear winner:
double) conversions. So, it might be a good candidate for the tasks predominantly doing that kind of conversions (with Spirit.Qi conversion-related limitations in mind); Spirit.Karma's to-string performance did not seem as impressive;
std::iostream-based converter was comparatively slow. Still, given its maturity, availability and formatting support, it might be an option to consider if conversion performance is not your primary concern;
strtol-inspired converter was reasonably fast and with formatting support might be an attractive all-rounder. It should be noted that it is nowhere as mature as
boost::cnv::stream. So, bugs are to be expected.
For user-defined types
were tested with the following results:
str-to-user-type: lcast/stream/strtol=0.36/0.18/0.07 seconds. user-type-to-str: lcast/stream/strtol=0.58/0.09/0.06 seconds.
To provide string-to-user-type and user-type-to-string
conversions the first two deploy the same standard
in these tests. The results reflect different underlying designs. Namely,
the standard Boost.Convert deployment pattern is to
create a converter or converters once and then re-use them.
boost::lexical_cast, on the other hand, creates
and then destroys a
std::stream instance every time the function
is called and the
boost::lexical_cast performance table
indicates that the "std::stringstream with construction"
operation is considerably more expensive compared to "std::stringstream
support for user types has been implemented similarly but without the
overhead. That resulted in the best out-of-three performance results.
Based on the performance data, I tend to conclude that, given type-safety and benefits provided by the Boost.Convert framework, it (with appropriate converters) should probably be the first choice for conversion-related tasks.