# Priority Queue Text `push` and `pop` Timing Test

## Description

This test inserts a number of values with keys from an arbitrary text ([ wickland96thirty ]) into a container using `push` , then removes them using `pop` . It measures the average time for `push` as a function of the number of values.

(The test was executed with `priority_queue_text_push_pop_timing_test` thirty_years_among_the_dead_preproc.txt 200 200 2100)

## Purpose

The test checks the effect of different underlying data structures (see Design::Priority Queues::Implementations).

## Results

Figures NPG, NPM, and NPL show the results for the native priority queues and `pb_ds` 's priority queues in g++, msvc++, and local, respectively; Figures NBRG, NBRM, and NBRL show the results for the native priority queues and `pb_ds`'s pairing queues in g++, msvc++, and local, respectively.

######

NPG: Native tree and `pb ds` priority queue `push` and `pop` timing test - g++

In the above figure, the names in the legends have the following meaning:

1. n_pq_vector- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::vector`
2. n_pq_deque- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::deque`
3. thin_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `thin_heap_tag`
4. rc_binomial_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `rc_binomial_heap_tag`
5. binomial_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `binomial_heap_tag`
6. binary_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `binary_heap_tag`
7. pairing_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `pairing_heap_tag`

######

NPM: Native tree and `pb ds` priority queue `push` and `pop` timing test - msvc++

In the above figure, the names in the legends have the following meaning:

1. n_pq_deque- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::deque`
2. n_pq_vector- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::vector`
3. thin_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `thin_heap_tag`
4. rc_binomial_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `rc_binomial_heap_tag`
5. binomial_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `binomial_heap_tag`
6. pairing_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `pairing_heap_tag`
7. binary_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `binary_heap_tag`

######

NPL: Native tree and `pb ds` priority queue `push` and `pop` timing test - local

######

NBRG: Native tree and `pb ds` pairing priority queue `push` and `pop` timing test - g++

In the above figure, the names in the legends have the following meaning:

1. n_pq_vector- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::vector`
2. n_pq_deque- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::deque`
3. pairing_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `pairing_heap_tag`

######

NBRM: Native tree and `pb ds` pairing priority queue `push` and `pop` timing test - msvc++

In the above figure, the names in the legends have the following meaning:

1. n_pq_deque- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::deque`
2. n_pq_vector- `std::priority_queue` adapting `std::vector`
3. pairing_heap- `priority_queue` with `Tag` = `pairing_heap_tag`

######

NBRL: Native tree and `pb ds` pairing priority queue `push` and `pop` timing test - local

## Observations

These results are very similar to Priority Queue Text `push` Timing Test. As stated there, pairing heaps (`priority_queue` with `Tag` = `pairing_heap_tag`) are most suited for `push` and `pop` sequences of non-primitive types such as strings. Observing these two tests, one can note that a pairing heap outperforms the others in terms of `push` operations, but equals binary heaps (`priority_queue` with `Tag` = `binary_heap_tag`) if the number of `push` and `pop` operations is equal. As the number of `pop` operations is at most equal to the number of `push` operations, pairing heaps are better in this case. See Priority Queue Random Integer `push` and `pop` Timing Test for a case which is different.

Priority-Queue Performance Tests::Observations discusses this further and summarizes.