 <p>The rate at which the capacity of a vector grows is implementation dependent. Implementations almost invariable choose exponential growth, in order to meet the <em>amortized constant time</em> requirement for the <code>push_back</code> operation. What <em>amortized constant time</em> means and how exponential growth achieves this is interesting.</p> <p>Every time a vector's capacity is grown the elements need to be copied. If you 'amortize' this cost out over the lifetime of the vector, it turns out that if you increase the capacity by an exponential factor you end up with an amortized constant cost.</p> <p>This probably seems a bit odd, so let me explain to you how this works...</p> <ul> <li>size: 1 capacity 1 - No elements have been copied, the cost per element for copies is 0.</li> <li>size: 2 capacity 2 - When the vector's capacity was increased to 2, the first element had to be copied. Average copies per element is 0.5</li> <li>size: 3 capacity 4 - When the vector's capacity was increased to 4, the first two elements had to be copied. Average copies per element is (2 + 1 + 0) / 3 = 1.</li> <li>size: 4 capacity 4 - Average copies per element is (2 + 1 + 0 + 0) / 4 = 3 / 4 = 0.75.</li> <li>size: 5 capacity 8 - Average copies per element is (3 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 0) / 5 = 7 / 5 = 1.4</li> <li>...</li> <li>size: 8 capacity 8 - Average copies per element is (3 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0) / 8 = 7 / 8 = 0.875</li> <li>size: 9 capacity 16 - Average copies per element is (4 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0) / 9 = 15 / 9 = 1.67</li> <li>...</li> <li>size 16 capacity 16 - Average copies per element is 15 / 16 = 0.938</li> <li>size 17 capacity 32 - Average copies per element is 31 / 17 = 1.82</li> </ul> <p>As you can see, every time the capacity jumps, the number of copies goes up by the previous size of the array. But because the array has to double in size before the capacity jumps again, the number of copies per element always stays less than 2.</p> <p>If you increased the capacity by 1.5 * N instead of by 2 * N, you would end up with a very similar effect, except the upper bound on the copies per element would be higher (I think it would be 3).</p> <p>I suspect an implementation would choose 1.5 over 2 both to save a bit of space, but also because 1.5 is closer to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio">golden ratio</a>. I have an intuition (that is currently not backed up by any hard data) that a growth rate in line with the golden ratio (because of its relationship to the fibonacci sequence) will prove to be the most efficient growth rate for real-world loads in terms of minimizing both extra space used and time.</p>