Related
If I have a vector of values and want to check that they are all the same, what is the best way to do this in C++ efficiently? If I were programming in some other language like R one way my minds jumps to is to return only the unique elements of the container and then if the length of the unique elements is more than 1, I know all the elements cannot be the same. In C++ this can be done like this:
//build an int vector
std::sort(myvector.begin(), myvector.end());
std::vector<int>::iterator it;
//Use unique algorithm to get the unique values.
it = std::unique(myvector.begin(), myvector.end());
positions.resize(std::distance(myvector.begin(),it));
if (myvector.size() > 1) {
std::cout << "All elements are not the same!" << std::endl;
}
However reading on the internet and SO, I see other answers such using a set or the find_if algorithm. So what is the most efficient way of doing this and why? I imagine mine is not the best way since it involves sorting every element and then a resizing of the vector - but maybe I'm wrong.
You need not to use std::sort. It can be done in a simpler way:
if ( std::adjacent_find( myvector.begin(), myvector.end(), std::not_equal_to<>() ) == myvector.end() )
{
std::cout << "All elements are equal each other" << std::endl;
}
you can use std::equal
version 1:
//assuming v has at least 1 element
if ( std::equal(v.begin() + 1, v.end(), v.begin()) )
{
//all equal
}
This will compare each element with the previous one.
version 2:
//assuming v has at least 1 element
int e = v[0]; //preferably "const auto& e" instead
bool all_equal = true;
for(std::size_t i = 1,s = v.size();i<s && all_equal;i++)
all_equal = e == v[i];
Edit:
Regarding performance, after testing with 100m elements i found out that in Visual Studio 2015 version 1 is about twice as fast as version 2. This is because the latest compiler for vs2015 uses sse instructions in c++ std implementations when you use ints, float , etc..
if you use _mm_testc_si128 you will get a similar performance to std::equal
using std::all_of and C++11 lambda
if (all_of(values.begin(), values.end(), [&] (int i) {return i == values[0];})){
//all are the same
}
Given no constraints on the vector, you have to iterate through the vector at least once, no matter the approach. So just pick the first element and check that all others are equal to it.
While the asymptotic complexity of std::unique is linear, the actual cost of the operation is probably much larger than you need, and it is an inplace algorithm (it will modify the data as it goes).
The fastest approach is to assume that if the vector contains a single element, it is unique by definition. If the vector contains more elements, then you just need to check whether all of them are exactly equal to the first. For that you only need to find the first element that differs from the first, starting the search from the second. If there is such an element, the elements are not unique.
if (v.size() < 2) return true;
auto different = std::find_if(v.begin()+1, v.end(),
[&v](auto const &x) { x != v[0]; });
return different == v.end();
That is using C++14 syntax, in an C++11 toolchain you can use the correct type in the lambda. In C++03 you could use a combination of std::not, std::bind1st/std::bind2nd and std::equal in place of the lambda.
The cost of this approach is distance(start,different element) comparisons and no copies. Expected and worst case linear cost in the number of comparisons (and no copies!)
Sorting is an O(NlogN) task.
This is easily solvable in O(N), so your current method is poor.
A simple O(N) would be as Luchian Grigore suggests, iterate over the vector, just once, comparing every element to the first element.
if(std::all_of(myvector.begin()+1, myvector.end(), std::bind(std::equal_to<int>(),
std::placeholders::_1, myvector.front())) {
// all members are equal
}
You can use FunctionalPlus(https://github.com/Dobiasd/FunctionalPlus):
std::vector<std::string> things = {"same old", "same old"};
if (fplus::all_the_same(things))
std::cout << "All things being equal." << std::endl;
Maybe something like this. It traverses vector just once and does not mess with the vector content.
std::vector<int> values { 5, 5, 5, 4 };
bool equal = std::count_if(values.begin(), values.end(), [ &values ] (auto size) { return size == values[0]; }) == values.size();
If the values in the vector are something different than basic type you have to implement equality operator.
After taking into account underscore_d remarks, I'm changing possible solution
std::vector<int> values { 5, 5, 5, 4 };
bool equal = std::all_of(values.begin(),values.end(),[ &values ] (auto item) { return item == values[0]; });
In your specific case, iterating over vector element and finding a different element from the first one would be enough. You may even be lucky enough to stop before evaluating all the elements in your vector. (A while loop could be used but I sticked with a for loop for readability reasons)
bool uniqueElt = true;
int firstItem = *myvector.begin();
for (std::vector<int>::const_iterator it = myvector.begin()+1; it != myvector.end() ; ++it) {
if(*it != firstItem) {
uniqueElt = false;
break;
}
}
In case you want to know how many different values your vector contains, you could build a set and check its size to see how many different values are inside:
std::set mySet;
std::copy(mySet.begin(), myvector.begin(), myvector.end());
You can simply use std::count to count all the elements that match the starting element:
std::vector<int> numbers = { 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 };
if (std::count(std::begin(numbers), std::end(numbers), numbers.front()) == numbers.size())
{
std::cout << "Elements are all the same" << std::endl;
}
LLVM provides some independently usable headers+libraries:
#include <llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h>
if (llvm::is_splat(myvector))
std::cout << "All elements are the same!" << std::endl;
https://godbolt.org/z/fQX-jc
for the sake of completeness, because it still isn't the most efficient, you can use std::unique in a more efficient way to decide whether all members are the same, but beware that after using std::unique this way the container is useless:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
if (std::distance(cntnr.begin(), std::unique(cntnr.begin(), cntnr.end()) == 1)
{
// all members were the same, but
}
Another approach using C++ 14:
bool allEqual = accumulate(v.begin(), v.end(), true, [first = v[0]](bool acc, int b) {
return acc && (b == first);
});
which is also order N.
Here is a readable C++17 solution which might remind students of the other constructors of std::vector:
if (v==std::vector(v.size(),v[0])) {
// you guys are all the same
}
...before C++17, the std::vector rvalue would need its type provided explicitly:
if (v==std::vector<typename decltype(v)::value_type>(v.size(),v[0])) {
// you guys are all the same
}
The C++ function is defined in library in STL. This function operates on whole range of array elements and can save time to run a loop to check each elements one by one. It checks for a given property on every element and returns true when each element in range satisfies specified property, else returns false.
// C++ code to demonstrate working of all_of()
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> v(10, 2);
// illustrate all_of
if (std::all_of(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), [](int i){ return i % 2 == 0; }))
{
std::cout << "All numbers are even\n";
}
}
If I have a vector of values and want to check that they are all the same, what is the best way to do this in C++ efficiently? If I were programming in some other language like R one way my minds jumps to is to return only the unique elements of the container and then if the length of the unique elements is more than 1, I know all the elements cannot be the same. In C++ this can be done like this:
//build an int vector
std::sort(myvector.begin(), myvector.end());
std::vector<int>::iterator it;
//Use unique algorithm to get the unique values.
it = std::unique(myvector.begin(), myvector.end());
positions.resize(std::distance(myvector.begin(),it));
if (myvector.size() > 1) {
std::cout << "All elements are not the same!" << std::endl;
}
However reading on the internet and SO, I see other answers such using a set or the find_if algorithm. So what is the most efficient way of doing this and why? I imagine mine is not the best way since it involves sorting every element and then a resizing of the vector - but maybe I'm wrong.
You need not to use std::sort. It can be done in a simpler way:
if ( std::adjacent_find( myvector.begin(), myvector.end(), std::not_equal_to<>() ) == myvector.end() )
{
std::cout << "All elements are equal each other" << std::endl;
}
you can use std::equal
version 1:
//assuming v has at least 1 element
if ( std::equal(v.begin() + 1, v.end(), v.begin()) )
{
//all equal
}
This will compare each element with the previous one.
version 2:
//assuming v has at least 1 element
int e = v[0]; //preferably "const auto& e" instead
bool all_equal = true;
for(std::size_t i = 1,s = v.size();i<s && all_equal;i++)
all_equal = e == v[i];
Edit:
Regarding performance, after testing with 100m elements i found out that in Visual Studio 2015 version 1 is about twice as fast as version 2. This is because the latest compiler for vs2015 uses sse instructions in c++ std implementations when you use ints, float , etc..
if you use _mm_testc_si128 you will get a similar performance to std::equal
using std::all_of and C++11 lambda
if (all_of(values.begin(), values.end(), [&] (int i) {return i == values[0];})){
//all are the same
}
Given no constraints on the vector, you have to iterate through the vector at least once, no matter the approach. So just pick the first element and check that all others are equal to it.
While the asymptotic complexity of std::unique is linear, the actual cost of the operation is probably much larger than you need, and it is an inplace algorithm (it will modify the data as it goes).
The fastest approach is to assume that if the vector contains a single element, it is unique by definition. If the vector contains more elements, then you just need to check whether all of them are exactly equal to the first. For that you only need to find the first element that differs from the first, starting the search from the second. If there is such an element, the elements are not unique.
if (v.size() < 2) return true;
auto different = std::find_if(v.begin()+1, v.end(),
[&v](auto const &x) { x != v[0]; });
return different == v.end();
That is using C++14 syntax, in an C++11 toolchain you can use the correct type in the lambda. In C++03 you could use a combination of std::not, std::bind1st/std::bind2nd and std::equal in place of the lambda.
The cost of this approach is distance(start,different element) comparisons and no copies. Expected and worst case linear cost in the number of comparisons (and no copies!)
Sorting is an O(NlogN) task.
This is easily solvable in O(N), so your current method is poor.
A simple O(N) would be as Luchian Grigore suggests, iterate over the vector, just once, comparing every element to the first element.
if(std::all_of(myvector.begin()+1, myvector.end(), std::bind(std::equal_to<int>(),
std::placeholders::_1, myvector.front())) {
// all members are equal
}
You can use FunctionalPlus(https://github.com/Dobiasd/FunctionalPlus):
std::vector<std::string> things = {"same old", "same old"};
if (fplus::all_the_same(things))
std::cout << "All things being equal." << std::endl;
Maybe something like this. It traverses vector just once and does not mess with the vector content.
std::vector<int> values { 5, 5, 5, 4 };
bool equal = std::count_if(values.begin(), values.end(), [ &values ] (auto size) { return size == values[0]; }) == values.size();
If the values in the vector are something different than basic type you have to implement equality operator.
After taking into account underscore_d remarks, I'm changing possible solution
std::vector<int> values { 5, 5, 5, 4 };
bool equal = std::all_of(values.begin(),values.end(),[ &values ] (auto item) { return item == values[0]; });
In your specific case, iterating over vector element and finding a different element from the first one would be enough. You may even be lucky enough to stop before evaluating all the elements in your vector. (A while loop could be used but I sticked with a for loop for readability reasons)
bool uniqueElt = true;
int firstItem = *myvector.begin();
for (std::vector<int>::const_iterator it = myvector.begin()+1; it != myvector.end() ; ++it) {
if(*it != firstItem) {
uniqueElt = false;
break;
}
}
In case you want to know how many different values your vector contains, you could build a set and check its size to see how many different values are inside:
std::set mySet;
std::copy(mySet.begin(), myvector.begin(), myvector.end());
You can simply use std::count to count all the elements that match the starting element:
std::vector<int> numbers = { 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5 };
if (std::count(std::begin(numbers), std::end(numbers), numbers.front()) == numbers.size())
{
std::cout << "Elements are all the same" << std::endl;
}
LLVM provides some independently usable headers+libraries:
#include <llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h>
if (llvm::is_splat(myvector))
std::cout << "All elements are the same!" << std::endl;
https://godbolt.org/z/fQX-jc
for the sake of completeness, because it still isn't the most efficient, you can use std::unique in a more efficient way to decide whether all members are the same, but beware that after using std::unique this way the container is useless:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
if (std::distance(cntnr.begin(), std::unique(cntnr.begin(), cntnr.end()) == 1)
{
// all members were the same, but
}
Another approach using C++ 14:
bool allEqual = accumulate(v.begin(), v.end(), true, [first = v[0]](bool acc, int b) {
return acc && (b == first);
});
which is also order N.
Here is a readable C++17 solution which might remind students of the other constructors of std::vector:
if (v==std::vector(v.size(),v[0])) {
// you guys are all the same
}
...before C++17, the std::vector rvalue would need its type provided explicitly:
if (v==std::vector<typename decltype(v)::value_type>(v.size(),v[0])) {
// you guys are all the same
}
The C++ function is defined in library in STL. This function operates on whole range of array elements and can save time to run a loop to check each elements one by one. It checks for a given property on every element and returns true when each element in range satisfies specified property, else returns false.
// C++ code to demonstrate working of all_of()
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::vector<int> v(10, 2);
// illustrate all_of
if (std::all_of(v.cbegin(), v.cend(), [](int i){ return i % 2 == 0; }))
{
std::cout << "All numbers are even\n";
}
}
Consider this fairly easy algorithmic problem:
Given an array of (unsorted) numbers, find the length of the longest sequence of adjacent numbers that are increasing. For example, if we have {1,4,2,3,5}, we expect the result to be 3 since {2,3,5} gives the longest increasing sequence of adjacent/contiguous elements. Note that for non-empty arrays, such as {4,3,2,1}, the minimum result will be 1.
This works:
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template <typename T, typename S>
T max_adjacent_length(const std::vector<S> &nums) {
if (nums.size() == 0) {
return 0;
}
T maxLength = 1;
T currLength = 1;
for (size_t i = 0; i < nums.size() - 1; i++) {
if (nums[i + 1] > nums[i]) {
currLength++;
} else {
currLength = 1;
}
maxLength = std::max(maxLength, currLength);
}
return maxLength;
}
int main() {
std::vector<double> nums = {1.2, 4.5, 3.1, 2.7, 5.3};
std::vector<int> ints = {4, 3, 2, 1};
std::cout << max_adjacent_length<int, double>(nums) << "\n"; // 2
std::cout << max_adjacent_length<int, int>(ints) << "\n"; // 1
return 0;
}
As an exercise for myself, I was wondering if there is/are STL algorithm(s) that achieve the same effect, thereby (ideally) avoiding the raw for-loop I have. The motivation behind doing this is to learn more about STL algorithms, and practice using abstracted algorithms to make my code more general and reusable.
Here are my ideas, but they don't quite achieve what I'd like.
std::adjacent_find achieves the pairwise comparisons and can be used to find the index of a non-increasing pair, but doesn't easily facilitate the ability to keep a current and maximum length and compare the two. It could be possible to have those state variables as part of my predicate function, but that seems a bit wrong since ideally you'd like your predicate function to not have any side effects, right?
std::adjacent_difference is interesting. One could use it to construct a vector of the differences between adjacent numbers. Then, starting from the second element, depending on if the difference is positive or negative, we could again track the maximum number of consecutive positive differences seen. This is actually quite close to achieving what we'd like. See the example code below:
#include <numeric>
#include <vector>
template <typename T, typename S> T max_adjacent_length(std::vector<S> &nums) {
if (nums.size() == 0) {
return 0;
}
std::adjacent_difference(nums.begin(), nums.end(), nums.begin());
nums.erase(std::begin(nums)); // keep only differences
T maxLength = 1, currLength = 1;
for (auto n : nums) {
currLength = n > 0 ? (currLength + 1) : 1;
maxLength = std::max(maxLength, currLength);
}
return maxLength;
}
The problem here is that we lose out the const-ness of nums if we want to compute the difference, or we have to sacrifice space and create a copy of nums, which is a no-no given the original solution is O(1) space complexity already.
Is there an idea/solution that I have overlooked that achieves what I want in a succinct and readable manner?
In both your code snippets, you are iterating through a range (in the first version, with an index-based-loop, and in the second with a range-for loop). This is not really the kind of code you should be writing if you want to use the standard algorithms, which work with iterators into the range. Instead of thinking of a range as a collection of elements, if you start thinking in terms of pairs of iterators, choosing the right algorithms becomes easier.
For this problem, here's a reasonable way to write this code:
auto max_adjacent_length = [](auto const & v)
{
long max = 0;
auto begin = v.begin();
while (begin != v.end()) {
auto next = std::is_sorted_until(begin, v.end());
max = std::max(std::distance(begin, next), max);
begin = next;
}
return max;
};
Here's a demo.
Note that you were already on the right track in terms of picking a reasonable algorithm. This could be solved with adjacent_find as well, with just a little more work.
For C++ language, what's the fastest way in processing run-time (in multi core processors), from an algorithm design viewpoint, to search numbers (e.g. between 100 and 1000) that are within an array (or splice or whatever faster data structures for the purpose of this) and return the range of numbers limited to only 10 items returned? e.g. pseudocode in golang:
var listofnums := []uint64
var numcounter := 1
// splice of [1,2,3,4,5,31,32 .. 932536543] this list has 1 billion numeric items.
// the listofnums are already sorted each time an item is added but we do not know the lower_bound or upper_bound of the item list.
// I know I can use binary search to find listofnums[i] where it is smallest at [i] too... I'm asking for suggestions.
for i:=uint(0); i < len(listofnums); i++ {
if listofnums[i] > 100 && listofnums[i] < 1000 {
if listofnums[i]> 1000 || numcounter == 10 {
return
}
fmt.Println("%d",listofnums[i])
numcounter++
}
}
is this the fastest way? I saw bitmap structures in C++ but not sure if can be applied here.
I've come across this question, which is perfectly fine for veteran programmers to ask but I have no idea why it's down voted.
What is the fastest search method for array?
Can someone please not remove this question but let me rephrase it? Thanks in advance. I hope to find the most optimum way to return a range of numbers from a large array of numeric items.
If I understand your problem correctly you need to find two positions in your array, the first of which all numbers are greater than or equal to 100 and the second of which all numbers are less than or equal to 1000.
The functions std::lower_bound and std::upper_bound do binary searches designed to find such a range.
For arrays, in C++ we usually use a std::vector and denote the beginning and end of ranges using a pair of iterators.
So something like this may be what you need:
std::pair<std::vector<int>::iterator, std::vector<int>::iterator>
find_range(std::vector<int>& v, int min, int max)
{
auto begin = std::lower_bound(std::begin(v), std::end(v), min);
// start searching after the previously found value
auto end = std::upper_bound(begin, std::end(v), max);
return {begin, end};
}
You can iterate over that range like this:
auto range = find_range(v, 100, 1000);
for(auto i = range.first; i != range.second; ++i)
std::cout << *i << '\n';
You can create a new vector from the range (slow) like this:
std::vector<int> selection{range.first, range.second};
My first attempt.
Features:
logN time complexity
creates an array slice, no copying of data
second binary search minimises the search space on the basis of the first
possible improvements:
if n is small, the second binary search would be a pessimisation. Better to simply count forward up to n times.
#include <vector>
#include <cstdint>
#include <algorithm>
#include <iterator>
#include <iostream>
template <class Iter> struct range
{
range(Iter first, std::size_t size) : begin_(first), end_(first + size) {}
auto begin() const { return begin_; }
auto end() const { return end_; }
Iter begin_, end_;
};
template<class Iter> range(Iter, std::size_t) -> range<Iter>;
auto find_first_n_between(std::vector<std::int64_t>& vec,
std::size_t n,
std::int64_t from, std::int64_t to)
{
auto lower = std::lower_bound(begin(vec), end(vec), from);
auto upper = std::upper_bound(lower, end(vec), to);
auto size = std::min(n, std::size_t(std::distance(lower, upper)));
return range(lower, size);
}
int main()
{
std::vector<std::int64_t> vec { 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,15,17,18,19,20 };
auto slice = find_first_n_between(vec, 5, 6, 15);
std::copy(std::begin(slice), std::end(slice), std::ostream_iterator<std::int64_t>(std::cout, ", "));
}
Here is my issue, lets say I have a std::vector with ints in it.
let's say it has 50,90,40,90,80,60,80.
I know I need to remove the second, fifth and third elements. I don't necessarily always know the order of elements to remove, nor how many. The issue is by erasing an element, this changes the index of the other elements. Therefore, how could I erase these and compensate for the index change. (sorting then linearly erasing with an offset is not an option)
Thanks
I am offering several methods:
1. A fast method that does not retain the original order of the elements:
Assign the current last element of the vector to the element to erase, then erase the last element. This will avoid big moves and all indexes except the last will remain constant. If you start erasing from the back, all precomputed indexes will be correct.
void quickDelete( int idx )
{
vec[idx] = vec.back();
vec.pop_back();
}
I see this essentially is a hand-coded version of the erase-remove idiom pointed out by Klaim ...
2. A slower method that retains the original order of the elements:
Step 1: Mark all vector elements to be deleted, i.e. with a special value. This has O(|indexes to delete|).
Step 2: Erase all marked elements using v.erase( remove (v.begin(), v.end(), special_value), v.end() );. This has O(|vector v|).
The total run time is thus O(|vector v|), assuming the index list is shorter than the vector.
3. Another slower method that retains the original order of the elements:
Use a predicate and remove if as described in https://stackoverflow.com/a/3487742/280314 . To make this efficient and respecting the requirement of
not "sorting then linearly erasing with an offset", my idea is to implement the predicate using a hash table and adjust the indexes stored in the hash table as the deletion proceeds on returning true, as Klaim suggested.
Using a predicate and the algorithm remove_if you can achieve what you want : see http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/remove_if/
Don't forget to erase the item (see remove-erase idiom).
Your predicate will simply hold the idx of each value to remove and decrease all indexes it keeps each time it returns true.
That said if you can afford just removing each object using the remove-erase idiom, just make your life simple by doing it.
Erase the items backwards. In other words erase the highest index first, then next highest etc. You won't invalidate any previous iterators or indexes so you can just use the obvious approach of multiple erase calls.
I would move the elements which you don't want to erase to a temporary vector and then replace the original vector with this.
While this answer by Peter G. in variant one (the swap-and-pop technique) is the fastest when you do not need to preserve the order, here is the unmentioned alternative which maintains the order.
With C++17 and C++20 the removal of multiple elements from a vector is possible with standard algorithms. The run time is O(N * Log(N)) due to std::stable_partition. There are no external helper arrays, no excessive copying, everything is done inplace. Code is a "one-liner":
template <class T>
inline void erase_selected(std::vector<T>& v, const std::vector<int>& selection)
{
v.resize(std::distance(
v.begin(),
std::stable_partition(v.begin(), v.end(),
[&selection, &v](const T& item) {
return !std::binary_search(
selection.begin(),
selection.end(),
static_cast<int>(static_cast<const T*>(&item) - &v[0]));
})));
}
The code above assumes that selection vector is sorted (if it is not the case, std::sort over it does the job, obviously).
To break this down, let us declare a number of temporaries:
// We need an explicit item index of an element
// to see if it should be in the output or not
int itemIndex = 0;
// The checker lambda returns `true` if the element is in `selection`
auto filter = [&itemIndex, &sorted_sel](const T& item) {
return !std::binary_search(
selection.begin(),
selection.end(),
itemIndex++);
};
This checker lambda is then fed to std::stable_partition algorithm which is guaranteed to call this lambda only once for each element in the original (unpermuted !) array v.
auto end_of_selected = std::stable_partition(
v.begin(),
v.end(),
filter);
The end_of_selected iterator points right after the last element which should remain in the output array, so we now can resize v down. To calculate the number of elements we use the std::distance to get size_t from two iterators.
v.resize(std::distance(v.begin(), end_of_selected));
This is different from the code at the top (it uses itemIndex to keep track of the array element). To get rid of the itemIndex, we capture the reference to source array v and use pointer arithmetic to calculate itemIndex internally.
Over the years (on this and other similar sites) multiple solutions have been proposed, but usually they employ multiple "raw loops" with conditions and some erase/insert/push_back calls. The idea behind stable_partition is explained beautifully in this talk by Sean Parent.
This link provides a similar solution (and it does not assume that selection is sorted - std::find_if instead of std::binary_search is used), but it also employs a helper (incremented) variable which disables the possibility to parallelize processing on larger arrays.
Starting from C++17, there is a new first argument to std::stable_partition (the ExecutionPolicy) which allows auto-parallelization of the algorithm, further reducing the run-time for big arrays. To make yourself believe this parallelization actually works, there is another talk by Hartmut Kaiser explaining the internals.
Would this work:
void DeleteAll(vector<int>& data, const vector<int>& deleteIndices)
{
vector<bool> markedElements(data.size(), false);
vector<int> tempBuffer;
tempBuffer.reserve(data.size()-deleteIndices.size());
for (vector<int>::const_iterator itDel = deleteIndices.begin(); itDel != deleteIndices.end(); itDel++)
markedElements[*itDel] = true;
for (size_t i=0; i<data.size(); i++)
{
if (!markedElements[i])
tempBuffer.push_back(data[i]);
}
data = tempBuffer;
}
It's an O(n) operation, no matter how many elements you delete. You could gain some efficiency by reordering the vector inline (but I think this way it's more readable).
This is non-trival because as you delete elements from the vector, the indexes change.
[0] hi
[1] you
[2] foo
>> delete [1]
[0] hi
[1] foo
If you keep a counter of times you delete an element and if you have a list of indexes you want to delete in sorted order then:
int counter = 0;
for (int k : IndexesToDelete) {
events.erase(events.begin()+ k + counter);
counter -= 1;
}
You can use this method, if the order of the remaining elements doesn't matter
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
vector< int> vec;
vec.push_back(1);
vec.push_back(-6);
vec.push_back(3);
vec.push_back(4);
vec.push_back(7);
vec.push_back(9);
vec.push_back(14);
vec.push_back(25);
cout << "The elements befor " << endl;
for(int i = 0; i < vec.size(); i++) cout << vec[i] <<endl;
vector< bool> toDeleted;
int YesOrNo = 0;
for(int i = 0; i<vec.size(); i++)
{
cout<<"You need to delete this element? "<<vec[i]<<", if yes enter 1 else enter 0"<<endl;
cin>>YesOrNo;
if(YesOrNo)
toDeleted.push_back(true);
else
toDeleted.push_back(false);
}
//Deleting, beginning from the last element to the first one
for(int i = toDeleted.size()-1; i>=0; i--)
{
if(toDeleted[i])
{
vec[i] = vec.back();
vec.pop_back();
}
}
cout << "The elements after" << endl;
for(int i = 0; i < vec.size(); i++) cout << vec[i] <<endl;
return 0;
}
Here's an elegant solution in case you want to preserve the indices, the idea is to replace the values you want to delete with a special value that is guaranteed not be used anywhere, and then at the very end, you perform the erase itself:
std::vector<int> vec = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};
// marking 3 elements to be deleted
vec[2] = std::numeric_limits<int>::lowest();
vec[5] = std::numeric_limits<int>::lowest();
vec[3] = std::numeric_limits<int>::lowest();
// erase
vec.erase(std::remove(vec.begin(), vec.end(), std::numeric_limits<int>::lowest()), vec.end());
// print values => 1 2 5 7 8 9
for (const auto& value : vec) std::cout << ' ' << value;
std::cout << std::endl;
It's very quick if you delete a lot of elements because the deletion itself is happening only once. Items can also be deleted in any order that way.
If you use a a struct instead of an int, then you can still mark an element of that struct, for ex dead=true and then use remove_if instead of remove =>
struct MyObj
{
int x;
bool dead = false;
};
std::vector<MyObj> objs = {{1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, {5}, {6}, {7}, {8}, {9}};
objs[2].dead = true;
objs[5].dead = true;
objs[3].dead = true;
objs.erase(std::remove_if(objs.begin(), objs.end(), [](const MyObj& obj) { return obj.dead; }), objs.end());
// print values => 1 2 5 7 8 9
for (const auto& obj : objs) std::cout << ' ' << obj.x;
std::cout << std::endl;
This one is a bit slower, around 80% the speed of the remove.