Best container for ordered elements - c++

Question

I am developing a time critical application and am looking for the best container to handle a collection of elements of the following type:
class Element
{
int weight;
Data data;
};
Considering that the time critical steps of my application, periodically performed in a unique thread, are the following:
the Element with the lowest weight is extracted from the container, and data is processed;
a number n>=0 of new Element, with random(*) weight, are inserted into the container.
Some Element of the container may have the same weight. The total number of elements in the container at any time is quite high and almost stationary in average (several hundreds of thousands). The time needed for the extract/process/insert sequence described above must be as low as possible. (Note(*): new weight is actually computed from data but is considered as random here to simplify.)
After some searches and tries of different STL containers, I ended up using std::multiset container, which performed about 5 times faster than ordered std::vector and 16 times faster than ordered std:list. But still, I am wondering if I could achieve even better performance, considering that the bottleneck of my application remains in the extract/insert operations.
Notice that, though I only tried ordered containers, I did not mentioned "ordered container" in my requirements. I do not need the Element to be ordered in the container, I only need to perform the "extract lowest weighted element"/"insert new elements" operations as fast as possible. I am not limited to STL containers and can go for boost, or any other implementation, if suited.
Thanks for help.

Answer 1

I do not need the Element to be ordered in the container, I only need to perform the "extract lowest weighted element"/"insert new elements" operations as fast as possible.
Then you should try priority_queue<T>, or use make_heap/push_heap/pop_heap operations on a vector<T>.
Since you are looking for min heap, not max heap, you would need to supply a custom comparator that orders your Element objects in reverse order.

Answer 2

I think that within the STL , lazy std::vector will give the best results.
a suggested psuedo code may look like:
emplace back new elements in the end of the vector
only when you want to smallest element, sort the array and get the first element
in this way, you get the amortized insertion time of vector, relativly small amount of memory allocations and good cache locality.

Answer 3

It is instructive to consider different candidates and how your assumptions would impact the final selection. When your requirements change, it then becomes easer to switch containers.
Generally, the containers of size N have roughly 3 complexity categories for their basic acces/modification operations: (amortized) O(1), O(log N) and O(N).
Your first requirement (finding the lowest weight element) gives you roughly three candidates with O(1) complexity, and one candidate with O(N) complexity per element:
O(1) for std::priority_queue<Element, LowestWeightCompare>
O(1) for std::multiset<Element, LowestWeightCompare>
O(1) for boost::flat_multiset<Element, LowestWeightCompare>
O(N) for std::unordered_multiset<Element>
Your second requirement (randomized insertion of new elements) gives you the following complexity per element for each of the above four choices
O(log N) for std::priority_queue
O(log N) for std::multiset
O(N) for boost::flat_multiset
amortized O(1) for std::unordered_multiset
Among the first three choices, boost::multiset should be dominated by the other two for large N. Among the remaining two, the better caching behavior of std::priority_queue over std::multiset might prevail. But: measure, measure, measure, however.
It is a priori ambiguous whether std::unorderd_multiset is competitive with the other three. Depending on the number n of randomly inserted elements, total cost per batch of find(1)-insert(n) would be O(N) search + O(n) insertion for std::unordered_multiset and O(1) search + O(n log N) insertion for std::multiset. Again, measure, measure, measure.
How robust are these considerations with respect to your requirements? The story would change as follows if you would have to find the k lowest weight elements in each batch. Then you'd have to compare the costs of find(k)-insert(n). The search costs would scale roughly as
O(k log N) for std::priority_queue
O(1) for std::multiset
O(1) for boost::flat_multiset
O(k N) for std::unordered_multiset
Note that a priority_queue can only efficiently access the top element, not its k top elements without actually calling pop() on them, which has O(log N) complexity per call. If you expect that your code would likely change from a find(1)-insert(n) batch-mode to a find(k)-insert(n), then it might be a good idea to choose std::multiset, or at least document what kind of interface changes it would require.
Bonus: the best of both worlds?! You might also want to experiment a bit with Boost.MultiIndex and use something like (check the documentation to get the syntax correct)
boost::multi_index<
Element,
indexed_by<
ordered_non_unique<member<Element, &Element::weight>, std::less<>>,
hashed_non_unique<>
>
>
The above code will create a node-based container that implement two pointer structures to keep track of both the ordering by Element weight and also to allow quick hashed insertion. This will allow O(1) lookup of the lowest weight Element and also allows O(n) random insertion of n new elements.
For large N, it should scale better than the four previously mentioned containers, but again, for moderate N, cache effects induced by pointer chasing into random memory might spoil its theoretical advantage over std::priority_queue. Did I mention the mantra of measure, measure, measure?

Answer 4

Try either of these:
std::map<int,std::vector<Data>>
or
std::unordered_map<int,std::vector<Data>>
The int above is the weight.
These both have different speeds for find, remove and add depending on many different factors such as if the element is there or not. (If there, unordered_map .find is faster, if not, map .find is faster)