I'm creating a HandleManager whose purpose is to simply map Handles (which is a typedef of long long int) to strings. The purpose is so that objects that use a Handle can also be identified via strings if it helps a user remember the object. In which case, in this map:
typedef std::unordered_map<Handle, std::string> HandleMap;
both types in the pair are keys insofar they can be used to identify anything. So far everything has compiled apart from the code which needs to get the Handle. The purpose is such that when a user allocates a string like so:
handle("myHandle");
A Handle is generated randomly and then the string passed is paired with it in the foresaid map. What I want now is to be able to get the Handle that is paired with the string based on the string that is passed:
Handle HandleManager::id(const std::string &name)
{
HandleMap::iterator it = pHandles.find(name);
if (it != pHandles.end())
return it->first;
return -1;
}
But for some weird reason the compiler complains about this:
HandleManager.cpp:48:45: error: no matching function for call to ‘std::unordered_map<long long int, std::basic_string<char> >::find(const string&)’
In the foresaid map, the string is the value and the Handle is the key. So how can I get the key from the unordered_map based on the value contained therein?
You can use the member function find to search for key only. To search for a value, you can use a std::find_if with a lambda function (if you use C++11), or to traverse the map (ok in previous C++ version):
for (HandleMap::const_iterator it = map.begin(); it != map.end(); ++it) {
if (it->second == name) return it->first;
}
// or value not found
On the other hand, if searching for a value is a very common operation, you may want to have two maps: std::unordered_map<Handle, std::string> and std::unordered_map<std::string, Handle>. In that case, you have to make sure you perform insertions, deletions, etc. in both maps to keep then synchronized.
std::unordered_map::find operates on the key, not the value. You can use std::find_if:
Handle HandleManager::id(const std::string &name)
{
auto it = std::find_if(std::begin(pHandles), std::end(pHandles),
[](auto&& p) { return p->second == name; });
if (it == std::end(pHandles))
return -1;
return it->first
}
Note that auto, std::begin, std::end and lambdas are C++11 and generic lambdas are C++14, so substitute those out if you're stuck with an old compiler.
But for some weird reason the compiler complains about this:
Of course it does, the find function is for lookup up by key and you're not doing that.
To find a value you need to visit every element until you find it (or use a bidirectional map which maps values back to keys, e.g. Boost.Bimap).
Based on answer from #TartanLlama (*):
Handle HandleManager::id(const std::string & name) {
auto iter = std::find_if(std::begin(pHandles), std::end(pHandles),
[& name](auto && pair) {
return pair.second == name;
});
if (it == std::end(pHandles)) {
return -1;
}
return it->first;
}
(*): Because it doesn't seem possible to format code in comments.
Related
Novice question, but I searched for this and couldn't find something clearly solving my issue - apologies if this is obvious.
I have defined a map which looks like this:
map<int, string> testmap = {
{ 0, "a" },
{ 1, "b" },
{ 2, "c" }
}
However, I need to retrieve a value from testmap using a uint64_t value provided by another function.
When I do testmap[my_uint64_t_value] it returns an empty string, so I think this is because it's adding my_uint64_t_value as a key and setting the value to NULL.
This is the same if I set the map type to <uint64_t, string>, at least the way I'm currently defining my keys.
However, is there a way that I either:
convert the uint64_t value to a regular int
define the map as <uint64_t, string>, and be able to define my
keys as the 'correct' type?
It seems like int type conversion isn't that common, is this something that should be avoided?
The reason why you get an empty string is std::map::operator[] returns a reference to the value if and only if it exists, otherwise it performs an insertion. I suspect you have the latter case.
You need to use std::map::find for search.
uint64_t keyToFind = 1;
if (auto iter = testmap.find(keyToFind); iter != testmap.cend())
{
// do something
std::cout << "Found!\n";
}
else { std::cout << "Not Found!\n"; }
Like #Rene mentioned in the comments, casting from uint64_t to int can cause overflow. Therefore, making the key to larger type(as per requirement) would be a good idea.
std::map<uint64_t, std::string> testmap;
As said in another answer, the [] operator of the map class will perform an insertion with a default-constructed value if the key is not present in the map.
You can first use the count method to determine if the key is present in the map before accessing it.
if(testmap.count(keyToFind))
return testmap[keyToFind];
else
report_key_not_found();
An alternative solution is to use the at method to access the value. It will throw an std::out_of_range exception if the key is not present instead of inserting a new key.
I am trying to use an unordered_map with another unordered_map as a key (custom hash function). I've also added a custom equal function, even though it's probably not needed.
The code does not do what I expect, but I can't make heads or tails of what's going on. For some reason, the equal function is not called when doing find(), which is what I'd expect.
unsigned long hashing_func(const unordered_map<char,int>& m) {
string str;
for (auto& e : m)
str += e.first;
return hash<string>()(str);
}
bool equal_func(const unordered_map<char,int>& m1, const unordered_map<char,int>& m2) {
return m1 == m2;
}
int main() {
unordered_map<
unordered_map<char,int>,
string,
function<unsigned long(const unordered_map<char,int>&)>,
function<bool(const unordered_map<char,int>&, const unordered_map<char,int>&)>
> mapResults(10, hashing_func, equal_func);
unordered_map<char,int> t1 = getMap(str1);
unordered_map<char,int> t2 = getMap(str2);
cout<<(t1 == t2)<<endl; // returns TRUE
mapResults[t1] = "asd";
cout<<(mapResults.find(t2) != mapResults.end()); // returns FALSE
return 0;
}
First of all, the equality operator is certainly required, so you should keep it.
Let's look at your unordered map's hash function:
string str;
for (auto& e : m)
str += e.first;
return hash<string>()(str);
Since it's an unordered map, by definition, the iterator can iterate over the unordered map's keys in any order. However, since the hash function must produce the same hash value for the same key, this hash function will obviously fail in that regard.
Additionally, I would also expect that the hash function will also include the values of the unorderered map key, in addition to the keys themselves. I suppose that you might want to do it this way -- for two unordered maps to be considered to be the same key as long as their keys are the same, ignoring their values. It's not clear from the question what your expectation is, but you may want to think it over.
Comparing two std::unordered_map objects using == compares whether the maps contain the same keys. It does nothing to tell whether they contain them in the same order (it's an unordered map, after all). However, your hashing_func depends on the order of items in the map: hash<string>()("ab") is in general different from hash<string>()("ba").
A good place to start is with what hashing_func returns for each map, or more easily what the string construction in hashing_func generates.
A more obviously correct hash function for such a type could be:
unsigned long hashing_func(const unordered_map<char,int>& m) {
unsigned long res = 0;
for (auto& e : m)
res ^ hash<char>()(e.first) ^ hash<int>()(e.second);
return res;
}
I have a recurrent pattern with the use of std::map.
I want to retrieve the value only when the key is present, otherwise I don't want to insert element. Currently I'm using count(key) or find(key) (which one is better? from the documentation the complexity seems to be the same) and if them returns a positive value that I access the map. However I would like to avoid the use of two operations on the map. Something like:
map<string, int> myMap;
int returnvalue;
boole result = myMap.get("key1",returnValue)
if(result){
\\ use returnValue
}
Reading the std::map documentation on cplusplus.com I found two functions for accessing map elements:
at(): which throws an excpetion if the key is not present
[]: which insert a new value if the key is not present
None of them satisfy my necessity.
Use map::find:
auto it = myMap.find(key);
if (it != myMap.end())
{
// use it->second
}
else
{
// not found
}
This part was easy. The harder problem is when you want to look up if an element exists and return it if it does, but otherwise insert a new element at that key, all without searching the map twice. For that you need to use lower_bound followed by hinted insertion.
using count() for sure the key is exists
then uses find() to get the k/v pair
if (myMap.count(key))
{
auto it = myMap.find(key)
}
else
{
// not found
}
Say I have more than one key with the same value in a map. Then in that case how do I retrieve all keys that matches a query.
Or, Is there any possibility to tell find operation to search after a specific value.
I am using an std::map, C++.
Would something like this work for you:
void FindKeysWithValue(Value aValue, list<Key>& aList)
{
aList.clear();
for_each(iMap.begin(), iMap.end(), [&] (const pair<Key, Value>& aPair)
{
if (aPair.second == aValue)
{
aList.push_back(aPair.first);
}
});
}
The associative containers probably won't help you too much because for std::map<K, V> the key happens to be unique and chances that your chosen query matches the ordering relation you used may not be too high. If the order matches, you can use the std::map<K, V> members lower_bound() and upper_bound(). For std::multimap<K, V> you can also use equal_range().
In general, i.e., if you query isn't really related to the order, you can use std::copy_if() to get a sequence of objects matching a predicate:
Other other;
// ...
std::vector<Other::value_type> matches;
std::copy_if(other.begin(), other.end(),
std::back_inserter(matches), predicate);
When copying the elements is too expensive, you should probably consider using std:find_if() instead:
for (auto it(other.begin());
other.end() != (it = std::find_if(it, other.end(), predicate));
++it) {
// do something with it
}
The only way is to iterate over map.
this link may be useful: Reverse map lookup
Provided you want quick access and you don't mind using some more space, then you maintain another map that gets stored as value, key. In your case, you would need to handle the duplicate values (that you will be storing as keys).
Not a great idea but definitely an option.
A map is meant for efficient lookup of keys. Lookup based on values is not efficient, and you basically have to iterate through the map, extracting matches yourself:
for(map<A,B>::iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end(); i++)
if(i->second == foo)
you_found_a_match();
If you intend to do this often, you can build up a multimap mapping the other way, so you can efficiently perform a value-based lookup:
multimap<B,A> reverse;
for(map<A,B>::iterator i = m.begin(); i != m.end(); i++)
reverse.insert(pair<B,A>(i->second,i->first));
You can now easily find the keys with a given value value:
matches = reverse.equal_range(value);
for(multimap<B,A>::iterator i = matches.first; i != matches.second; i++)
A & key = i->second;
If these maps aren't going to grow continuously, it may be more efficient to simply maintain a vector > instead, define a comparator for it based on the value, and use equal_range on that instead.
I'm using the STL map data structure, and at the moment my code first invokes find(): if the key was not previously in the map, it calls insert() it, otherwise it does nothing.
map<Foo*, string>::iterator it;
it = my_map.find(foo_obj); // 1st lookup
if(it == my_map.end()){
my_map[foo_obj] = "some value"; // 2nd lookup
}else{
// ok do nothing.
}
I was wondering if there is a better way than this, because as far as I can tell, in this case when I want to insert a key that is not present yet, I perform 2 lookups in the map data structures: one for find(), one in the insert() (which corresponds to the operator[] ).
Thanks in advance for any suggestion.
Normally if you do a find and maybe an insert, then you want to keep (and retrieve) the old value if it already existed. If you just want to overwrite any old value, map[foo_obj]="some value" will do that.
Here's how you get the old value, or insert a new one if it didn't exist, with one map lookup:
typedef std::map<Foo*,std::string> M;
typedef M::iterator I;
std::pair<I,bool> const& r=my_map.insert(M::value_type(foo_obj,"some value"));
if (r.second) {
// value was inserted; now my_map[foo_obj]="some value"
} else {
// value wasn't inserted because my_map[foo_obj] already existed.
// note: the old value is available through r.first->second
// and may not be "some value"
}
// in any case, r.first->second holds the current value of my_map[foo_obj]
This is a common enough idiom that you may want to use a helper function:
template <class M,class Key>
typename M::mapped_type &
get_else_update(M &m,Key const& k,typename M::mapped_type const& v) {
return m.insert(typename M::value_type(k,v)).first->second;
}
get_else_update(my_map,foo_obj,"some value");
If you have an expensive computation for v you want to skip if it already exists (e.g. memoization), you can generalize that too:
template <class M,class Key,class F>
typename M::mapped_type &
get_else_compute(M &m,Key const& k,F f) {
typedef typename M::mapped_type V;
std::pair<typename M::iterator,bool> r=m.insert(typename M::value_type(k,V()));
V &v=r.first->second;
if (r.second)
f(v);
return v;
}
where e.g.
struct F {
void operator()(std::string &val) const
{ val=std::string("some value")+" that is expensive to compute"; }
};
get_else_compute(my_map,foo_obj,F());
If the mapped type isn't default constructible, then make F provide a default value, or add another argument to get_else_compute.
There are two main approaches. The first is to use the insert function that takes a value type and which returns an iterator and a bool which indicate if an insertion took place and returns an iterator to either the existing element with the same key or the newly inserted element.
map<Foo*, string>::iterator it;
it = my_map.find(foo_obj); // 1st lookup
my_map.insert( map<Foo*, string>::value_type(foo_obj, "some_value") );
The advantage of this is that it is simple. The major disadvantage is that you always construct a new value for the second parameter whether or not an insertion is required. In the case of a string this probably doesn't matter. If your value is expensive to construct this may be more wasteful than necessary.
A way round this is to use the 'hint' version of insert.
std::pair< map<foo*, string>::iterator, map<foo*, string>::iterator >
range = my_map.equal_range(foo_obj);
if (range.first == range.second)
{
if (range.first != my_map.begin())
--range.first;
my_map.insert(range.first, map<Foo*, string>::value_type(foo_obj, "some_value") );
}
The insertiong is guaranteed to be in amortized constant time only if the element is inserted immediately after the supplied iterator, hence the --, if possible.
Edit
If this need to -- seems odd, then it is. There is an open defect (233) in the standard that hightlights this issue although the description of the issue as it applies to map is clearer in the duplicate issue 246.
In your example, you want to insert when it's not found. If default construction and setting the value after that is not expensive, I'd suggest simpler version with 1 lookup:
string& r = my_map[foo_obj]; // only lookup & insert if not existed
if (r == "") r = "some value"; // if default (obj wasn't in map), set value
// else existed already, do nothing
If your example tells what you actually want, consider adding that value as str Foo::s instead, you already have the object, so no lookups would be needed, just check if it has default value for that member. And keep the objs in the std::set. Even extending class FooWithValue2 may be cheaper than using map.
But If joining data through the map like this is really needed or if you want to update only if it existed, then Jonathan has the answer.