I am working on a A* pathfinding algorithm in C++. I have the simple code below, now I need to find the object with lowest F. I know how to do this by iterating the vector and comparing it manualy, but I think there might be some other simplier way requering less code. Thanks for answers
struct Node
{
int f;
};
void func()
{
std::vector<Node> nodes;
//fill nodes with some objects
//now find Node object with smallest F
}
std::min_element and lambda comparator seems to be most terse. By the way, using plain vector seems to defeat the purpose of using fast search algorithm such as A*. It's ok during developement, but for the final version you should use fast priority queue, such as heap-based std::priority_queue.
You can keep a temp int variable, and in this variable record the smallest value index of vector. Everytime when you push the new value to vector, you can compare it with the vector value with the temp index and record the new smallest value index.
I've faced the same problem when I was implementing A* algorithm.
Look at boost::multi_index. It allows you to have a map with many keys.
So you can have both: "sorting" Nodes by F (when one of the keys is F) and fast finding by Node's position (when second key is 'Node') what is required in A*.
For 'F' as a key you will need to specify that this key is nonunique as there can be many items with the same F value (so for this key multi_index needs to behave as std::multimap). Otherwise for such situation multimap will behave like a map and nodes with the same 'F' will not be stored.
When multi_index is used, you can take a first item by key 'F' and this will be and item with lowest 'F' value. (AFAIR you can specify the sorting order)
Related
I need to use a data structure which supports constant time lookups on average. I think that using a std::unordered_map is a good way to do it. My data is a "collection" of numbers.
|115|190|380|265|
These numbers do not have to be in a particular order. I need to have about O(1) time to determine whether or not a given number exists in this data structure. I have the idea of using a std::unordered_map, which is actually a hash table (am I correct?). So the numbers will be keys, and then I would just have dummy values.
So basically I first need to determine if the key matching a given number exists in the data structure, and I run some algorithm based on that condition. And independently of that condition I also want to update a particular key. Let's say 190, and I want to add 20 to it, so now the key would be 210.
And now the data structure would look like this:
|115|210|380|265|
The reason I want to do this is because I have a recursive algorithm which traverses a binary search tree. Each node has an int value, and two pointers to the left and right nodes. When a leaf node is reached, I need to create a new field in the "hash table" data structure holding the current_node->value. Then when I go back up the tree in the recursion, I need to successively add each of the node's value to the previous sum stored in the key. And the reason why my data structure (which I suggest should be a std::unordered_map) has multiple fields of numbers is because each one of them represents a unique path going from a leaf node up the tree to a certain node in the middle. I check if the sum of all the values of the nodes on the path from the leaf going up to a given node is equal to the value of that node. So basically into each key is added the current value of the node, storing the sum of all the nodes on that path. I need to scan that data structure to determine if any one of the fields or keys is equal to the value of the current node. Also I want to insert new values into the data structure in near constant time. This is for competitive programming, and I would hesitate to use a std::vector because looking up an element and inserting an element takes linear time, I think. That would screw up my time complexity. Maybe I should use another data structure other than a std::unordered_map?
You can use unordered_map::erase and unordered_map::insert to update a key. The average time complexity is O(1)(BTW, the worst is O(n)). If you are using C++17, you can also use unordered_map::extract to update a key. The time complexity is the same.
However, since you only need a set of number, I think unordered_set is more suitable for your algorithm.
#include <unordered_map>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
std::unordered_map<int, int> m;
m[42]; // add
m[69]; // some
m[90]; // keys
int value = 90; // value to check for
auto it = m.find(90);
if (it != m.end()) {
m.erase(it); // remove it
m[value + 20]; // add an altered value
}
}
#include <unordered_map>
#include <string>
int main() {
// replace same key but other instance
std::unordered_map<std::string, int> eden;
std::string k1("existed key");
std::string k2("existed key");
const auto &[it, first] = eden.try_emplace(k1, 1);
if (!first) {
eden.erase(it);
eden.emplace_hint(it, k2, 123);
}
}
Since C++17, you can also use its extract function as follows:
std::unordered_map<int, int> map = make_map();
auto node = map.extract(some_key);
node.key() = new_key;
map.insert(std::move(node));
I have nested map of type:
std::map<int,std::map<pointer,pointer>>
I am iterating over the map each time/per frame and doing updates on it.So basically I have 2 nested if loops.
i have an array and i need to sort the data with 2 attributes. First attribute is integer which is the first key, then second attribute is a pointer which is a key of nested map inside the main map. so my code is something like:
iterator = outermap.find();
if(iterator!=outermap.end()){
value = iterator->second;
it1 = value.find();
if(it1!=value.end(){
value1 = it1->second;
// do something
}
else{
// do something and add new value
}
}
else {
// do something and add the values
}
This is really slow and causing my application to drop frame rate. Is there any alternative to this? Can we use hash codes and linked list to achieve the same?
You can use std::unordered_map, it will hash the keys so finds complete faster. Using value = iterator->second is copying your entire map to the 'value' variable. Using a reference avoids unnecessary copying and is better for performance, eg: auto & value = iterator->second.
Also std::map is guaranteed to be ordered. This can be used to your advantage since your keys are integers for the outermost map.
Firstly, your question is a bit vague, so this may or may not fit your problem.
Now, you have a map<int, map<pointer, pointer>>, but you never operate on the inner map itself. All you do is look up a value by an int and a pointer. This is also exactly what you should do instead, use an aggregate of those two as key in a map. The type for that is pair<int, pointer>, the map then becomes a map<pair<int, pointer>, pointer>.
One more note: You seem to know the keys to search in the map in advance. If the check whether the element exists is not just for safety, you could also use the overloaded operator[] of the map. The lookup then becomes outermap[ikey][pkey] and returns a default-initialized pointer (so probably a null pointer, it pointer really is a pointer). For the suggested combined map, the lookup would be outermap[make_pair(ikey, pkey)].
If I have a map with keys as strings. How can I know which string is in which place in the map? For example, 'cats' is the first entry and 'dogs' are the second entry. How will I know that dogs are the second entry in the map? Should I go through the map and search/check the order or is there any easier way?
You can find() the element, and then compute the distance between the element and the map's begin(). Since this is a map, the complexity of distance will be O(n) with the number of elements in the map. I doubt you'd see much performance improvement versus simply looping the map and counting, but I'd prefer to not write such hand-written loops.
But this smells like an XY Problem. Why would you need the position of an element in a map?
You can't do that anyway better, and here's two reasons for that:
a) std::map has a tree inside that, so initially leaves of tree don't have linear order, only a partial order (of course you can compare two keys, but you can't do that for a general binary tree - that's the reason for complication).
b) std::map has bidirectional iterator, so you can't have effective iterator arithmetics. You could do that like this:
typedef map<string, int> MyMapT;
MyMapT data;
// ...
auto it = data.find("dog");
if (it == data.end()) {
// don't have such a key
}
auto position = distance(data.begin(), data.end());
Unfortunately, that's not the best way to do that, because distance function works in O(n) time for bidirectional iterators. Again, that's because of tree structure inside the std::map.
The underlying data structure I am using is:
map<int, Cell> struct Cell{ char c; Cell*next; };
In effect the data structure maps an int to a linked list. The map(in this case implemented as a hashmap) ensures that finding a value in the list runs in constant time. The Linked List ensures that insertion and deletion also run in constant time. At each processing iteration I am doing something like:
Cell *cellPointer1 = new Cell;
//Process cells, build linked list
Once the list is built I put the elements Cell in map. The structure was working just fine and after my program I deallocate memory. For each Cell in the list.
delete cellPointer1
But at the end of my program I have a memory leak!!
To test memory leak I use:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <crtdbg.h>
#define _CRTDBG_MAP_ALLOC
_CrtDumpMemoryLeaks();
I'm thinking that somewhere along the way the fact that I am putting the Cells in the map does not allow me to deallocate the memory correctly. Does anyone have any ideas on how to solve this problem?
We'll need to see your code for insertion and deletion to be sure about it.
What I'd see as a memleak-free insert / remove code would be:
( NOTE: I'm assuming you don't store the Cells that you allocate in the map )
//
// insert
//
std::map<int, Cell> _map;
Cell a; // no new here!
Cell *iter = &a;
while( condition )
{
Cell *b = new Cell();
iter->next = b;
iter = b;
}
_map[id] = a; // will 'copy' a into the container slot of the map
//
// cleanup:
//
std::map<int,Cell>::iterator i = _map.begin();
while( i != _map.end() )
{
Cell &a = i->second;
Cell *iter = a.next; // list of cells associated to 'a'.
while( iter != NULL )
{
Cell *to_delete = iter;
iter = iter->next;
delete to_delete;
}
_map.erase(i); // will remove the Cell from the map. No need to 'delete'
i++;
}
Edit: there was a comment indicating that I might not have understood the problem completely. If you insert ALL the cells you allocate in the map, then the faulty thing is that your map contains Cell, not Cell*.
If you define your map as: std::map<int, Cell *>, your problem would be solved at 2 conditions:
you insert all the Cells that you allocate in the map
the integer (the key) associated to each cell is unique (important!!)
Now the deletion is simply a matter of:
std::map<int, Cell*>::iterator i = _map.begin();
while( i != _map.end() )
{
Cell *c = i->second;
if ( c != NULL ) delete c;
}
_map.clear();
I've built almost the exact same hybrid data structure you are after (list/map with the same algorithmic complexity if I were to use unordered_map instead) and have been using it from time to time for almost a decade though it's a kind of bulky structure (something I'd use with convenience in mind more than efficiency).
It's worth noting that this is quite different from just using std::unordered_map directly. For a start, it preserves the original order in which one inserts elements. Insertion, removal, and searches are guaranteed to happen in logarithmic time (or constant time depending on whether key searching is involved and whether you use a hash table or BST), iterators do not get invalidated on insertion/removal (the main requirement I needed which made me favor std::map over std::unordered_map), etc.
The way I did it was like this:
// I use this as the iterator for my container with
// the list being the main 'focal point' while I
// treat the map as a secondary structure to accelerate
// key searches.
typedef typename std::list<Value>::iterator iterator;
// Values are stored in the list.
std::list<Value> data;
// Keys and iterators into the list are stored in a map.
std::map<Key, iterator> accelerator;
If you do it like this, it becomes quite easy. push_back is a matter of pushing back to the list and adding the last iterator to the map, iterator removal is a matter of removing the key pointed to by the iterator from the map before removing the element from the list as the list iterator, finding a key is a matter of searching the map and returning the associated value in the map which happens to be the list iterator, key removal is just finding a key and then doing iterator removal, etc.
If you want to improve all methods to constant time, then you can use std::unordered_map instead of std::map as I did here (though that comes with some caveats).
Taking an approach like this should simplify things considerably over an intrusive list-based solution where you're manually having to free memory.
Is there a reason why you are not using built-in containers like, say, STL?
Anyhow, you don't show the code where the allocation takes place, nor the map definition (is this coming from a library?).
Are you sure you deallocate all of the previously allocated Cells, starting from the last one and going backwards up to the first?
You could do this using the STL (remove next from Cell):
std::unordered_map<int,std::list<Cell>>
Or if cell only contains a char
std::unordered_map<int,std::string>
If your compiler doesn't support std::unordered_map then try boost::unordered_map.
If you really want to use intrusive data structures, have a look at Boost Intrusive.
As others have pointed out, it may be hard to see what you're doing wrong without seeing your code.
Someone should mention, however, that you're not helping yourself by overlaying two container types here.
If you're using a hash_map, you already have constant insertion and deletion time, see the related Hash : How does it work internally? post. The only exception to the O(c) lookup time is if your implementation decides to resize the container, in which case you have added overhead regardless of your linked list addition. Having two addressing schemes is only going to make things slower (not to mention buggier).
Sorry if this doesn't point you to the memory leak, but I'm sure a lot of memory leaks / bugs come from not using stl / boost containers to their full potential. Look into that first.
You need to be very careful with what you are doing, because values in a C++ map need to be copyable and with your structure that has raw pointers, you must handle your copy semantics properly.
You would be far better off using std::list where you won't need to worry about your copy semantics.
If you can't change that then at least std::map<int, Cell*> will be a bit more manageable, although you would have to manage the pointers in your map because std::map will not manage them for you.
You could of course use std::map<int, shared_ptr<Cell> >, probably easiest for you for now.
If you also use shared_ptr within your Cell object itself, you will need to beware of circular references, and as Cell will know it's being shared_ptr'd you could derive it from enable_shared_from_this
My final point will be that list is very rarely the correct collection type to use. It is the correct one to use sometimes, especially when you have an LRU cache situation and you want to move accessed elements to the end of the list fast. However that is the minority case and it probably doesn't apply here. Think of an alternative collection you really want. map< int, set<char> > perhaps? or map< int, vector< char > > ?
Your list has a lot of overheads to store a few chars
I need to create a data structure that can access elements by a string key, or by their ordinal.
the class currently uses an array of nodes that contain the string key and a pointer to whatever element. This allows for O(n) looping through, or O(1) getting an element by ordinal, however the only way I've found to find an element by key is doing an O(n) loop and comparing keys until I find what I want, which is SLOW when there are 1000+ elements. is there a way to use the key to reference the pointer, or am I out of luck?
EDIT: the by ordinal is not so much important as the O(n) looping. This is going to be used as a base structure that will be inherited for use in other ways, for instance, if it was a structure of draw able objects, i'd want to be able to draw all of them in a single loop
You can use std::map for O(log n) searching speed. View this branch for more details. In this branch exactly your situation (fast retrieving values by string or/and ordinal key) is discussed.
Small example (ordinal keys are used, you can do similiar things with strings):
#include <map>
#include <string>
using std::map;
using std::string;
struct dummy {
unsigned ordinal_key;
string dummy_body;
};
int main()
{
map<unsigned, dummy> lookup_map;
dummy d1;
d1.ordinal_key = 10;
lookup_map[d1.ordinal_key] = d1;
// ...
unsigned some_key = 20;
//determing if element with desired key is presented in map
if (lookup_map.find(some_key) != lookup_map.end())
//do stuff
}
If you seldom modify your array you can just keep it sorted and use binary_search on it to find the element by key in O(logn) time (technically O(klogn) since you're using strings [where k is the average length of a key string]).
Of course this (just like using a map or unordered_map) will mess up your ordinal retrieval since the elements are going to be stored in sorted order not insertion order.
Use vector and map:
std::vector<your_struct> elements;
std::map<std::string, int> index;
Map allows you to retrieve the key's index in O(lg n) time, whereas the vector allows O(1) element access by index.
Use a hashmap