I have a map which stores <int, char *>. Now I want to retrieve the elements in the order they have been inserted. std::map returns the elements ordered by the key instead. Is it even possible?
If you are not concerned about the order based on the int (IOW you only need the order of insertion and you are not concerned with the normal key access), simply change it to a vector<pair<int, char*>>, which is by definition ordered by the insertion order (assuming you only insert at the end).
If you want to have two indices simultaneously, you need, well, Boost.MultiIndex or something similar. You'd probably need to keep a separate variable that would only count upwards (would be a steady counter), though, because you could use .size()+1 as new "insertion time key" only if you never erased anything from your map.
Now I want to retrieve the elements in the order they have been inserted. [...] Is it even possible?
No, not with std::map. std::map inserts the element pair into an already ordered tree structure (and after the insertion operation, the std::map has no way of knowing when each entry was added).
You can solve this in multiple ways:
use a std::vector<std::pair<int,char*>>. This will work, but not provide the automatic sorting that a map does.
use Boost stuff (#BartekBanachewicz suggested Boost.MultiIndex)
Use two containers and keep them synchronized: one with a sequential insert (e.g. std::vector) and one with indexing by key (e.g. std::map).
use/write a custom container yourself, so that supports both type of indexing (by key and insert order). Unless you have very specific requirements and use this a lot, you probably shouldn't need to do this.
A couple of options (other than those that Bartek suggested):
If you still want key-based access, you could use a map, along with a vector which contains all the keys, in insertion order. This gets inefficient if you want to delete elements later on, though.
You could build a linked list structure into your values: instead of the values being char*s, they're structs of a char* and the previously- and nextly-inserted keys**; a separate variable stores the head and tail of the list. You'll need to do the bookkeeping for that on your own, but it gives you efficient insertion and deletion. It's more or less what boost.multiindex will do.
** It would be nice to store map iterators instead, but this leads to circular definition problems.
Related
I inserted the elements to the unordered_map with this code:
myMap.insert(std::make_pair("A", 10));
myMap.insert(std::make_pair("B", 11));
myMap.insert(std::make_pair("C", 12));
myMap.insert(std::make_pair("D", 13));
But when I used this command to print the keys
for (const auto i : myMap)
{
cout << i.first << std::endl;
}
they are not in the same order as I inserted them.
Is it possible to keep the order?
No, it is not possible.
Usage of std::unordered_map doesn't give you any guarantee on element order.
If you want to keep elements sorted by map keys (as seems from your example) you should use std::map.
If you need to keep list of ordered pairs you can use std::vector<std::pair<std::string,int>>.
Not with an unordered associative data structure. However, other data structures preserve order, such as std::map which keeps the data sorted by their keys. If you search Stackoverflow a little, you will find many solutions for a data structure with fast key-based lookup and ordered access, e.g. using boost::multi_index.
If it is just about adding values to a container, and taking them out in the order of insertion, then you can go with something that models a queue, e.g. std::dequeue. Just push_back to add a new value, and pop_front to remove the oldest value. If there is no need to remove the values from the container then just go with a std::vector.
Remarkably common request without too many clean,simple solutions. But here they are:
The big library: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_71_0/libs/multi_index/doc/tutorial/index.html Use unique index std::string (or is it char?) and sequenced index to retain the order.
Write it yourself using 2 STL containers: Use a combination of std::unordered_map (or std::map if you want sorted key order traverse as well) and a vector to retain the sequenced order. There are several ways to set this up, depending on the types on your keys/values. Usually keys in the map and the values in the vector. then the map is map<"key_type",int> where the int points to the element in the vector and therefore the value.
I might have a play with a simple template for a wrapper to tie the 2 STL containers together and post it here later...
I have put a proof of concept up for review here:
I went with std::list to store the order in the end, because I wanted efficient delete. But You might choose std::vector if you wanted random access by insertion order.
I used a a list of Pair pointers to avoid duplicate key storage.
As the question says, I need to iterate over my map's elements in a certain order, that is, the traditional < order. I thought that by using integers as key, it would have been done automatically, but I was wrong. In fact, when I use a for-each loop like this:
mymap<int, Mytype*> m;
for(auto&x: m){
std::cout << x->first;
}
The keys aren't in order! Why does that happen?It's iterator's fault or maybe it's because of
the hashing function?
EDIT:now I've noticed that if I change the order of insertion it changes the result of the for-each loop too.
EDIT2: I know unordered_map is unordered. But:
"Internally, the elements in the unordered_map are not sorted in any particular order with respect to either their key or mapped values, but organized into buckets depending on their hash values to allow for fast access to individual elements directly by their key values (with a constant average time complexity on average)."(from c++reference)
So I thought I could use a particular Hash function that could give also the order(since keys are int)
From the title of your question I assume that mymap is unordered_map. Well, unordered_map is unordered. The order of entries does not follow from operator< or anything like that, and you may assume that the order is random. The map iterators reflect this internal order.
You can't get order out of an std::unordered_map, you can't really write an ordered iterator for it, unless you really hack the concept.
If you want ordered iteration, either store it in a std::map, which is ordered, but likely slower in accessing, or either copy the contents, or create indexing into a different container, sort it (or use a sorted container like std::map), and use that data. You either re-create this data each time you need it ordered, or keep the two containers in sync. For this the best choice would be to use boost::multi_index_container. Reference: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0b1/libs/multi_index/doc/index.html
Java has a LinkedHashSet, which is a set with a predictable iteration order. What is the closest available data structure in C++?
Currently I'm duplicating my data by using both a set and a vector. I insert my data into the set. If the data inserted successfully (meaning data was not already present in the set), then I push_back into the vector. When I iterate through the data, I use the vector.
If you can use it, then a Boost.MultiIndex with sequenced and hashed_unique indexes is the same data structure as LinkedHashSet.
Failing that, keep an unordered_set (or hash_set, if that's what your implementation provides) of some type with a list node in it, and handle the sequential order yourself using that list node.
The problems with what you're currently doing (set and vector) are:
Two copies of the data (might be a problem when the data type is large, and it means that your two different iterations return references to different objects, albeit with the same values. This would be a problem if someone wrote some code that compared the addresses of the "same" elements obtained in the two different ways, expecting the addresses to be equal, or if your objects have mutable data members that are ignored by the order comparison, and someone writes code that expects to mutate via lookup and see changes when iterating in sequence).
Unlike LinkedHashSet, there is no fast way to remove an element in the middle of the sequence. And if you want to remove by value rather than by position, then you have to search the vector for the value to remove.
set has different performance characteristics from a hash set.
If you don't care about any of those things, then what you have is probably fine. If duplication is the only problem then you could consider keeping a vector of pointers to the elements in the set, instead of a vector of duplicates.
To replicate LinkedHashSet from Java in C++, I think you will need two vanilla std::map (please note that you will get LinkedTreeSet rather than the real LinkedHashSet instead which will get O(log n) for insert and delete) for this to work.
One uses actual value as key and insertion order (usually int or long int) as value.
Another ones is the reverse, uses insertion order as key and actual value as value.
When you are going to insert, you use std::map::find in the first std::map to make sure that there is no identical object exists in it.
If there is already exists, ignore the new one.
If it does not, you map this object with the incremented insertion order to both std::map I mentioned before.
When you are going to iterate through this by order of insertion, you iterate through the second std::map since it will be sorted by insertion order (anything that falls into the std::map or std::set will be sorted automatically).
When you are going to remove an element from it, you use std::map::find to get the order of insertion. Using this order of insertion to remove the element from the second std::map and remove the object from the first one.
Please note that this solution is not perfect, if you are planning to use this on the long-term basis, you will need to "compact" the insertion order after a certain number of removals since you will eventually run out of insertion order (2^32 indexes for unsigned int or 2^64 indexes for unsigned long long int).
In order to do this, you will need to put all the "value" objects into a vector, clear all values from both maps and then re-insert values from vector back into both maps. This procedure takes O(nlogn) time.
If you're using C++11, you can replace the first std::map with std::unordered_map to improve efficiency, you won't be able to replace the second one with it though. The reason is that std::unordered map uses a hash code for indexing so that the index cannot be reliably sorted in this situation.
You might wanna know that std::map doesn't give you any sort of (log n) as in "null" lookup time. And using std::tr1::unordered is risky business because it destroys any ordering to get constant lookup time.
Try to bash a boost multi index container to be more freely about it.
The way you described your combination of std::set and std::vector sounds like what you should be doing, except by using std::unordered_set (equivalent to Java's HashSet) and std::list (doubly-linked list). You could also use std::unordered_map to store the key (for lookup) along with an iterator into the list where to find the actual objects you store (if the keys are different from the objects (or only a part of them)).
The boost library does provide a number of these types of combinations of containers and look-up indices. For example, this bidirectional list with fast look-ups example.
I am a C++ newbie trying to use a map so I can get constant time lookups for the find() method.
The problem is that when I use an iterator to go over the elements in the map, elements do not appear in the same order that they were placed in the map.
Without maintaining another data structure, is there a way to achieve in order iteration while still retaining the constant time lookup ability?
Please let me know.
Thanks,
jbu
edit: thanks for letting me know map::find() isn't constant time.
Without maintaining another data structure, is there a way to achieve in order iteration while still retaining the constant time lookup ability?
No, that is not possible. In order to get an efficient lookup, the container will need to order the contents in a way that makes the efficient lookup possible. For std::map, that will be some type of sorted order; for std::unordered_map, that will be an order based on the hash of the key.
In either case, the order will be different then the order in which they were added.
First of all, std::map guarantees O(log n) lookup time. You might be thinking about std::tr1::unordered_map. But that by definitions sacrifices any ordering to get the constant-time lookup.
You'd have to spend some time on it, but I think you can bash boost::multi_index_container to do what you want.
What about using a vector for the keys in the original order and a map for the fast access to the data?
Something like this:
vector<string> keys;
map<string, Data*> values;
// obtaining values
...
keys.push_back("key-01");
values["key-01"] = new Data(...);
keys.push_back("key-02");
values["key-02"] = new Data(...);
...
// iterating over values in original order
vector<string>::const_iterator it;
for (it = keys.begin(); it != keys.end(); it++) {
Data* value = values[*it];
}
I'm going to actually... go backward.
If you want to preserve the order in which elements were inserted, or in general to control the order, you need a sequence that you will control:
std::vector (yes there are others, but by default use this one)
You can use the std::find algorithm (from <algorithm>) to search for a particular value in the vector: std::find(vec.begin(), vec.end(), value);.
Oh yes, it has linear complexity O(N), but for small collections it should not matter.
Otherwise, you can start looking up at Boost.MultiIndex as already suggested, but for a beginner you'll probably struggle a bit.
So, shirk the complexity issue for the moment, and come up with something that work. You'll worry about speed when you are more familiar with the language.
Items are ordered by operator< (by default) when applied to the key.
PS. std::map does not gurantee constant time look up.
It gurantees max complexity of O(ln(n))
First off, std::map isn't constant-time lookup. It's O(log n). Just thought I should set that straight.
Anyway, you have to specify your own comparison function if you want to use a different ordering. There isn't a built-in comparison function that can order by insertion time, but, if your object holds a timestamp field, you can arrange to set the timestamp at the time of insertion, and using a by-timestamp comparison.
Map is not meant for placing elements in some order - use vector for that.
If you want to find something in map you should "search" by the key using [the operator
If you need both: iteration and search by key see this topic
Yes you can create such a data structure, but not using the standard library... the reason is that standard containers can be nested but cannot be mixed.
There is no problem implementing for example a map data structure where all the nodes are also in a doubly linked list in order of insertion, or for example a map where all nodes are in an array. It seems to me that one of these structures could be what you're looking for (depending which operation you prefer to be fast), but neither of them is trivial to build using standard containers because every standard container (vector, list, set, ...) wants to be the one and only way to access contained elements.
For example I found useful in many cases to have nodes that were at the same time in multiple doubly-linked lists, but you cannot do that using std::list.
I have a list of files (stored as c style strings) that I will be performing a search on and I will remove those files that do not match my parameters. What is the best container to use for this purpose? I'm thinking Set as of now. Note the list of files will never be larger than when it is initialized. I'll only be deleting from the container.
I would definitely not use a set - you don't need to sort it so no point in using a set. Set is implemented as a self-balancing tree usually, and the self-balancing algorithm is unnecessary in your case.
If you're going to be doing this operation once, I would use a std::vector with remove_if (from <algorithm>), followed by an erase. If you haven't used remove_if before, what it does is go through and shifts all the relevant items down, overwriting the irrelevant ones in the process. You have to follow it with an erase to reduce the size of the vector. Like so:
std::vector<const char*> files;
files.erase(remove_if(files.begin(), files.end(), RemovePredicate()), files.end());
Writing the code to do the same thing with a std::list would be a little bit more difficult if you wanted to take advantage of its O(1) deletion time property. Seeing as you're just doing this one-off operation which will probably take so little time you won't even notice it, I'd recommend doing this as it's the easiest way.
And to be honest, I don't think you'll see that much difference in terms of speed between the std::list and std::vector approaches. The vector approach only copies each value once so it's actually quite fast, yet takes much less space. In my opinion, going up to a std::list and using three times the space is only really justified if you're doing a lot of addition and deletion throughout the entire application's lifetime.
Elements in a std::set must be unique, so unless the filenames are globally unique this won't suit your needs.
I would probably recommend a std::list.
From SGI:
A vector is a Sequence that supports random access to elements, constant time insertion and removal of elements at the end, and linear time insertion and removal of elements at the beginning or in the middle.
A list is a doubly linked list. That is, it is a Sequence that supports both forward and backward traversal, and (amortized) constant time insertion and removal of elements at the beginning or the end, or in the middle.
An slist is a singly linked list: a list where each element is linked to the next element, but not to the previous element. That is, it is a Sequence that supports forward but not backward traversal, and (amortized) constant time insertion and removal of elements.
Set is a Sorted Associative Container that stores objects of type Key. Set is a Simple Associative Container, meaning that its value type, as well as its key type, is Key. It is also a Unique Associative Container, meaning that no two elements are the same.
Multiset is a Sorted Associative Container that stores objects of type Key. Multiset is a Simple Associative Container, meaning that its value type, as well as its key type, is Key. It is also a Multiple Associative Container, meaning that two or more elements may be identical.
Hash_set is a Hashed Associative Container that stores objects of type Key. Hash_set is a Simple Associative Container, meaning that its value type, as well as its key type, is Key. It is also a Unique Associative Container, meaning that no two elements compare equal using the Binary Predicate EqualKey.
Hash_multiset is a Hashed Associative Container that stores objects of type Key. Hash_multiset is a simple associative container, meaning that its value type, as well as its key type, is Key. It is also a Multiple Associative Container, meaning that two or more elements may compare equal using the Binary Predicate EqualKey.
(Some containers have been omitted.)
I would go with hash_set if all you care to have is a container which is fast and doesn't contain multiple identical keys. hash_multiset if you do, set or multiset if you want the strings to be sorted, or list or slist if you want the strings to keep their insertion order.
After you've built your list/set, use remove_if to filter out your items based on your criteria.
I will start by tossing out vector since it is a sequential container. Set, I believe is close to being sequential or hashed. I would avoid that. A doublely-linked list, the stl list is one of these, has two pointers and the node. Basically, to remove an item, it breaks the chain then rejoins the two parts with the pointers.
Assuming your search criteria does not depend on the filename (ie. you search for content, file sizes etc.), so you cannot make use of a set, I'd go with a list. It will take you O(N) to construct the whole list, and O(1) per one delete.
If you wanted to make it even faster, and didn't insist on using ready-made STL containers, I would:
use a vector
delete using false delete, ie. marking an item as deleted
when the ratio of deleted/all items raises above certain threshold, I would filter the items with remove_if
This should give you the best space/time/cache performance. (Although you should profile it to be sure)
You can use two lists/vectors/whatever:
using namespace std;
vector<const char *> files;
files.push_back("foo.bat");
files.push_back("bar.txt");
vector<const char *> good_files; // Maybe reserve elements given files.size()?
for(vector<const char *>::const_iterator i = files.begin(); i != files.end(); ++i) {
if(file_is_good(*i)) {
new_files.push_back(*i);
}
}