The task is to implement an O(1) Least Recently Used Cache
Here is the question on leetcode
https://leetcode.com/problems/lru-cache/
Here is my solution, while it is O(1) it is not the fastest implementationcould you give some feedback and maybe ideas on how can I optimize this ? Thank you !
#include<unordered_map>
#include<list>
class LRUCache {
// umap<key,<value,listiterator>>
// store the key,value, position in list(iterator) where push_back occurred
private:
unordered_map<int,pair<int,list<int>::iterator>> umap;
list<int> klist;
int cap = -1;
public:
LRUCache(int capacity):cap(capacity){
}
int get(int key) {
// if the key exists in the unordered map
if(umap.count(key)){
// remove it from the old position
klist.erase(umap[key].second);
klist.push_back(key);
list<int>::iterator key_loc = klist.end();
umap[key].second = --key_loc;
return umap[key].first;
}
return -1;
}
void put(int key, int value) {
// if key already exists delete it from the the umap and klist
if(umap.count(key)){
klist.erase(umap[key].second);
umap.erase(key);
}
// if the unordered map is at max capacity
if(umap.size() == cap){
umap.erase(klist.front());
klist.pop_front();
}
// finally update klist and umap
klist.push_back(key);
list<int>::iterator key_loc = klist.end();
umap[key].first = value;
umap[key].second = --key_loc;
return;
}
};
/**
* Your LRUCache object will be instantiated and called as such:
* LRUCache* obj = new LRUCache(capacity);
* int param_1 = obj->get(key);
* obj->put(key,value);
*/
Here's some optimizations that might help:
Take this segment of code from the get function:
if(umap.count(key)){
// remove it from the old position
klist.erase(umap[key].second);
The above will lookup key in the map twice. Once for the count method to see if it exists. Another to invoke the [] operator to fetch its value. Save a few cycles by doing this:
auto itor = umap.find(key);
if (itor != umap.end()) {
// remove it from the old position
klist.erase(itor->second);
In the put function, you do this:
if(umap.count(key)){
klist.erase(umap[key].second);
umap.erase(key);
}
Same thing as get, you can avoid the redundant search through umap. Additionally, there's no reason to invoke umap.erase only to add that same key back into the map a few lines later.
Further, this is also inefficient
umap[key].first = value;
umap[key].second = --key_loc;
Similar to above, redundantly looking up key twice in the map. In the first assignment statement, the key is not in the map, so it default constructs a new value pair thing. The second assignment is doing another lookup in the map.
Let's restructure your put function as follows:
void put(int key, int value) {
auto itor = umap.find(key);
bool reinsert = (itor != umap.end());
// if key already exists delete it from the klist only
if (reinsert) {
klist.erase(umap[key].second);
}
else {
// if the unordered map is at max capacity
if (umap.size() == cap) {
umap.erase(klist.front());
klist.pop_front();
}
}
// finally update klist and umap
klist.push_back(key);
list<int>::iterator key_loc = klist.end();
auto endOfList = --key_loc;
if (reinsert) {
itor->second.first = value;
itor->second.second = endOfList;
}
else {
const pair<int, list<int>::iterator> itempair = { value, endOfList };
umap.emplace(key, itempair);
}
}
That's as far as you can probably go by using std::list. The downside of the list type is that there's no way to move an existing node from the middle to the front (or back) without first removing it and then adding it back. That's a couple of unneeded memory allocations to update the list. Possible alternative is that you just use your own double-linked list type and manually fixup the prev/next pointer yourself.
Here is my solution, while it is O(1) it is not the fastest implementation
could you give some feedback and maybe ideas on how can I optimize this ? Thank you !
Gonna take on selbie's point here:
Every instance of if(umap.count(key)) will search for the key and using umap[key] is the equivalent for the search. You can avoid the double search by assigning an iterator which points to the key by a single std::unordered_map::find() operation.
selbie already gave the code for int get()'s search, here's the one for void put()'s one:
auto it = umap.find(key);
if (it != umap.end())
{
klist.erase(it ->second);
umap.erase(key);
}
Sidecase:
Not applicable for your code as of now due to lack of input and output work, but in case you use std::cin and std::cout, you can disable the synchronization between C and C++ streams, and untie cin from cout as an optimization: (they are tied together by default)
// If your using cin/cout or I/O
ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(nullptr);
cout.tie(nullptr);
I want to delete selected row of list control in MFC.
I have created a Delete Button, So If any row (it could be one or more than one row) is/are selected and I press delete button that/those rows should be deleted.
If lets say there are 100 rows and I select rows from 50-60, all the rows in this range should be deleted and rest of rows should have indexes from 1 to 90. means indexing should be proper after deletion also.
Adapted from this MSDN article:
UINT i, uSelectedCount = m_myListCtrl.GetSelectedCount();
int nItem;
if (uSelectedCount > 0)
for (i=0; i < uSelectedCount; i++)
{ nItem = m_myListCtrl.GetNextItem(-1, LVNI_SELECTED);
ASSERT(nItem != -1);
m_myListCtrl.DeleteItem(nItem);
}
When deleting a multiple selection having several items I prefer to do it like this:
int nItem = -1;
while ((nItem = m_list.GetNextItem(nItem, LVNI_SELECTED)) != -1)
{
if (m_list.DeleteItem(nItem))
nItem--;
}
Notice the important nItem--; line
UPDATE
I had to give up from this approach as the ItemData of an element gots fucked up. If I remove the nth element then the n+1 element will be my new nth. That element has a completely screwed up Itemdata.
UPDATE 2
I also tried with
int nItem = -1;
while ((nItem = m_list.GetNextItem(-1, LVNI_SELECTED)) != -1)
{
m_list.DeleteItem(nItem);
}
This approach also has the problem of screwing the Itemdata I reported before.
The following approach worked perfecly for me:
std::stack< int > items;
int nItem = -1;
while ((nItem = myListCtrl.GetNextItem(nItem, LVNI_SELECTED)) != -1)
{
items.push(nItem);
}
bool removed = false;
while (!items.empty())
{
nItem = items.top();
if (myListCtrl.DeleItem(nItem))
removed = true;
items.pop();
}
if (removed)
// update some application state;
Explanation:
When you remove things from the end to the start, you do not have to worry about the validity of positions. As the CListCtrl does not provide a GetPrevItem or any other way to get items in the reverse order, you need to store them in a collection where you can have that reverse order.
The most practical way to do it is to use a stack. Due to the way it works, you will put things in there in the normal order, and when you retrieve things they are automatically in reverse order.
Given the following code :
void World::extractStates(deque<string> myDeque)
{
unsigned int i = 0;
string current; // current extracted string
while (i < myDeque.size()) // run on the entire vector and extract all the elements
{
current = myDeque.pop_front(); // doesn't work
// do more stuff
}
}
I want to extract each iteration the element at the front , but pop_front() is a void
method . How can I get the element (at the front) then ?
Regards
Use front to read the item and pop_front to remove it.
current = myDeque.front();
myDeque.pop_front();
This way of doing things may seem counter-productive, but it is necessary in order for deque to provide adequate exception-safety guarantees.
I need some assistance with a C++ project. What I have to do is remove the given element from an array of pointers. The technique taught to me is to create a new array with one less element and copy everything from the old array into the new one except for the specified element. After that I have to point the old array towards the new one.
Here's some code of what I have already:
I'm working with custom structs by the way...
Data **values = null; // values is initialized in my insert function so it is
// populated
int count; // this keeps track of values' length
bool remove(Data * x) {
Data **newArray = new Data *[count - 1];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
while (x != values[i]) {
newArray[i] = values[i];
}
count -= 1;
return true;
}
values = newArray;
return false;
}
So far the insert function works and outputs the populated array, but when I run remove all it does is make the array smaller, but doesn't remove the desired element. I'm using the 0th element every time as a control.
This is the output I've been getting:
count=3 values=[5,6,7] // initial insertion of 5, 6, 7
five is a member of collection? 0
count=3 values=[5,6] // removal of 0th element aka 5, but doesn't work
five is a member of collection? 0
count=4 values=[5,6,5] // re-insertion of 0th element (which is stored in
five is a member of collection? 0 // my v0 variable)
Could anyone nudge me in the right direction towards completing this?
First of all, your code is leaking memory like no good! Next you only copy the first element and not even that if the first element happens to be the one you want to remove. Also, when you return from your function, you haven't changed your internal state at all. You definitely want to do something along the lines of
Data** it = std::find(values, values + count, x);
if (it != values + count) {
std::copy(it + 1, values + count, it);
--count;
return true;
}
return false;
That said, if anybody taught you to implement something like std::vector<T> involving reallocations on every operation, it is time to change schools! Memory allocations are relatively expensive and you want to avoid them. That is, when implementing something like a std::vector<T> you, indeed, want to implement it like a std::vector<T>! That is you keep an internal buffer of potentially more element than there are and remember how many elements you are using. When inserting a new element, you only allocate a new array if there is no space in the current array (not doing so would easily result in quadratic complexity even when always adding elements at the end). When removing an element, you just move all the trailing objects one up and remember that there is one less object in the array.
Try this:
bool remove(Data * x)
{
bool found = false;
// See if x is in the array.
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
if (x != values[i]) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found)
{
return false;
}
// Only need to create the array if the item to be removed is present
Data **newArray = new Data *[count - 1];
// Copy the content to the new array
int newIndex = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
if (x != values[i])
newArray[newIndex++] = values[i];
}
// Now change the pointers.
delete[] values;
count--;
values = newArray;
return true;
}
Note that there's an underlying assumption that if x is present in the array then it's there only once! The code will not work for multiple occurrences, that's left to you, seeing as how this is a school exercise.
Is there a way to find a nonexisting key in a map?
I am using std::map<int,myclass>, and I want to automatically generate a key for new items. Items may be deleted from the map in different order from their insertion.
The myclass items may, or may not be identical, so they can not serve as a key by themself.
During the run time of the program, there is no limit to the number of items that are generated and deleted, so I can not use a counter as a key.
An alternative data structure that have the same functionality and performance will do.
Edit
I trying to build a container for my items - such that I can delete/modify items according to their keys, and I can iterate over the items. The key value itself means nothing to me, however, other objects will store those keys for their internal usage.
The reason I can not use incremental counter, is that during the life-span of the program they may be more than 2^32 (or theoretically 2^64) items, however item 0 may theoretically still exist even after all other items are deleted.
It would be nice to ask std::map for the lowest-value non-used key, so i can use it for new items, instead of using a vector or some other extrnal storage for non-used keys.
I'd suggest a combination of counter and queue. When you delete an item from the map, add its key to the queue. The queue then keeps track of the keys that have been deleted from the map so that they can be used again. To get a new key, you first check if the queue is empty. If it isn't, pop the top index off and use it, otherwise use the counter to get the next available key.
Let me see if I understand. What you want to do is
look for a key.
If not present, insert an element.
Items may be deleted.
Keep a counter (wait wait) and a vector. The vector will keep the ids of the deleted items.
When you are about to insert the new element,look for a key in the vector. If vector is not empty, remove the key and use it. If its empty, take one from the counter (counter++).
However, if you neveer remove items from the map, you are just stuck with a counter.
Alternative:
How about using the memory address of the element as a key ?
I would say that for general case, when key can have any type allowed by map, this is not possible. Even ability to say whether some unused key exists requires some knowledge about type.
If we consider situation with int, you can store std::set of contiguous segments of unused keys (since these segments do not overlap, natural ordering can be used - simply compare their starting points). When a new key is needed, you take the first segment, cut off first index and place the rest in the set (if the rest is not empty). When some key is released, you find whether there are neighbour segments in the set (due to set nature it's possible with O(log n) complexity) and perform merging if needed, otherwise simply put [n,n] segment into the set.
in this way you will definitely have the same order of time complexity and order of memory consumption as map has independently on requests history (because number of segments cannot be more than map.size()+1)
something like this:
class TKeyManager
{
public:
TKeyManager()
{
FreeKeys.insert(
std::make_pair(
std::numeric_limits<int>::min(),
std::numeric_limits<int>::max());
}
int AlocateKey()
{
if(FreeKeys.empty())
throw something bad;
const std::pair<int,int> freeSegment=*FreeKeys.begin();
if(freeSegment.second>freeSegment.first)
FreeKeys.insert(std::make_pair(freeSegment.first+1,freeSegment.second));
return freeSegment.first;
}
void ReleaseKey(int key)
{
std:set<std::pair<int,int>>::iterator position=FreeKeys.insert(std::make_pair(key,key)).first;
if(position!=FreeKeys.begin())
{//try to merge with left neighbour
std::set<std::pair<int,int>>::iterator left=position;
--left;
if(left->second+1==key)
{
left->second=key;
FreeKeys.erase(position);
position=left;
}
}
if(position!=--FreeKeys.end())
{//try to merge with right neighbour
std::set<std::pair<int,int>>::iterator right=position;
++right;
if(right->first==key+1)
{
position->second=right->second;
FreeKeys.erase(right);
}
}
}
private:
std::set<std::pair<int,int>> FreeKeys;
};
Is there a way to find a nonexisting
key in a map?
I'm not sure what you mean here. How can you find something that doesn't exist? Do you mean, is there a way to tell if a map does not contain a key?
If that's what you mean, you simply use the find function, and if the key doesn't exist it will return an iterator pointing to end().
if (my_map.find(555) == my_map.end()) { /* do something */ }
You go on to say...
I am using std::map, and
I want to automatically generate a key
for new items. Items may be deleted
from the map in different order from
their insertion. The myclass items may, or may not be identical, so they can not serve as a key by themself.
It's a bit unclear to me what you're trying to accomplish here. It seems your problem is that you want to store instances of myclass in a map, but since you may have duplicate values of myclass, you need some way to generate a unique key. Rather than doing that, why not just use std::multiset<myclass> and just store duplicates? When you look up a particular value of myclass, the multiset will return an iterator to all the instances of myclass which have that value. You'll just need to implement a comparison functor for myclass.
Could you please clarify why you can not use a simple incremental counter as auto-generated key? (increment on insert)? It seems that there's no problem doing that.
Consider, that you decided how to generate non-counter based keys and found that generating them in a bulk is much more effective than generating them one-by-one.
Having this generator proved to be "infinite" and "statefull" (it is your requirement), you can create a second fixed sized container with say 1000 unused keys.
Supply you new entries in map with keys from this container, and return keys back for recycling.
Set some low "threshold" to react on key container reaching low level and refill keys in bulk using "infinite" generator.
The actual posted problem still exists "how to make efficient generator based on non-counter". You may want to have a second look at the "infinity" requirement and check if say 64-bit or 128-bit counter still can satisfy your algorithms for some limited period of time like 1000 years.
use uint64_t as a key type of sequence or even if you think that it will be not enough
struct sequence_key_t {
uint64_t upper;
uint64_t lower;
operator++();
bool operator<()
};
Like:
sequence_key_t global_counter;
std::map<sequence_key_t,myclass> my_map;
my_map.insert(std::make_pair(++global_counter, myclass()));
and you will not have any problems.
Like others I am having difficulty figuring out exactly what you want. It sounds like you want to create an item if it is not found. sdt::map::operator[] ( const key_type& x ) will do this for you.
std::map<int, myclass> Map;
myclass instance1, instance2;
Map[instance1] = 5;
Map[instance2] = 6;
Is this what you are thinking of?
Going along with other answers, I'd suggest a simple counter for generating the ids. If you're worried about being perfectly correct, you could use an arbitrary precision integer for the counter, rather than a built in type. Or something like the following, which will iterate through all possible strings.
void string_increment(std::string& counter)
{
bool carry=true;
for (size_t i=0;i<counter.size();++i)
{
unsigned char original=static_cast<unsigned char>(counter[i]);
if (carry)
{
++counter[i];
}
if (original>static_cast<unsigned char>(counter[i]))
{
carry=true;
}
else
{
carry=false;
}
}
if (carry)
{
counter.push_back(0);
}
}
e.g. so that you have:
std::string counter; // empty string
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x00"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x01"
...
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\xFF"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x00\x00"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x01\x00"
...
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\xFF\x00"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x00\x01"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x01\x01"
...
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\xFF\xFF"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x00\x00\x00"
string_increment(counter); // now counter=="\x01\x00\x00"
// etc..
Another option, if the working set actually in the map is small enough would be to use an incrementing key, then re-generate the keys when the counter is about to wrap. This solution would only require temporary extra storage. The hash table performance would be unchanged, and the key generation would just be an if and an increment.
The number of items in the current working set would really determine if this approach is viable or not.
I loved Jon Benedicto's and Tom's answer very much. To be fair, the other answers that only used counters may have been the starting point.
Problem with only using counters
You always have to increment higher and higher; never trying to fill the empty gaps.
Once you run out of numbers and wrap around, you have to do log(n) iterations to find unused keys.
Problem with the queue for holding used keys
It is easy to imagine lots and lots of used keys being stored in this queue.
My Improvement to queues!
Rather than storing single used keys in the queue; we store ranges of unused keys.
Interface
using Key = wchar_t; //In my case
struct Range
{
Key first;
Key last;
size_t size() { return last - first + 1; }
};
bool operator< (const Range&,const Range&);
bool operator< (const Range&,Key);
bool operator< (Key,const Range&);
struct KeyQueue__
{
public:
virtual void addKey(Key)=0;
virtual Key getUniqueKey()=0;
virtual bool shouldMorph()=0;
protected:
Key counter = 0;
friend class Morph;
};
struct KeyQueue : KeyQueue__
{
public:
void addKey(Key)override;
Key getUniqueKey()override;
bool shouldMorph()override;
private:
std::vector<Key> pool;
friend class Morph;
};
struct RangeKeyQueue : KeyQueue__
{
public:
void addKey(Key)override;
Key getUniqueKey()override;
bool shouldMorph()override;
private:
boost::container::flat_set<Range,std::less<>> pool;
friend class Morph;
};
void morph(KeyQueue__*);
struct Morph
{
static void morph(const KeyQueue &from,RangeKeyQueue &to);
static void morph(const RangeKeyQueue &from,KeyQueue &to);
};
Implementation
Note: Keys being added are assumed to be key not found in queue
// Assumes that Range is valid. first <= last
// Assumes that Ranges do not overlap
bool operator< (const Range &l,const Range &r)
{
return l.first < r.first;
}
// Assumes that Range is valid. first <= last
bool operator< (const Range &l,Key r)
{
int diff_1 = l.first - r;
int diff_2 = l.last - r;
return diff_1 < -1 && diff_2 < -1;
}
// Assumes that Range is valid. first <= last
bool operator< (Key l,const Range &r)
{
int diff = l - r.first;
return diff < -1;
}
void KeyQueue::addKey(Key key)
{
if(counter - 1 == key) counter = key;
else pool.push_back(key);
}
Key KeyQueue::getUniqueKey()
{
if(pool.empty()) return counter++;
else
{
Key key = pool.back();
pool.pop_back();
return key;
}
}
bool KeyQueue::shouldMorph()
{
return pool.size() > 10;
}
void RangeKeyQueue::addKey(Key key)
{
if(counter - 1 == key) counter = key;
else
{
auto elem = pool.find(key);
if(elem == pool.end()) pool.insert({key,key});
else // Expand existing range
{
Range &range = (Range&)*elem;
// Note at this point, key is 1 value less or greater than range
if(range.first > key) range.first = key;
else range.last = key;
}
}
}
Key RangeKeyQueue::getUniqueKey()
{
if(pool.empty()) return counter++;
else
{
Range &range = (Range&)*pool.begin();
Key key = range.first++;
if(range.first > range.last) // exhausted all keys in range
pool.erase(pool.begin());
return key;
}
}
bool RangeKeyQueue::shouldMorph()
{
return pool.size() == 0 || pool.size() == 1 && pool.begin()->size() < 4;
}
void morph(KeyQueue__ *obj)
{
if(KeyQueue *queue = dynamic_cast<KeyQueue*>(obj))
{
RangeKeyQueue *new_queue = new RangeKeyQueue();
Morph::morph(*queue,*new_queue);
obj = new_queue;
}
else if(RangeKeyQueue *queue = dynamic_cast<RangeKeyQueue*>(obj))
{
KeyQueue *new_queue = new KeyQueue();
Morph::morph(*queue,*new_queue);
obj = new_queue;
}
}
void Morph::morph(const KeyQueue &from,RangeKeyQueue &to)
{
to.counter = from.counter;
for(Key key : from.pool) to.addKey(key);
}
void Morph::morph(const RangeKeyQueue &from,KeyQueue &to)
{
to.counter = from.counter;
for(Range range : from.pool)
while(range.first <= range.last)
to.addKey(range.first++);
}
Usage:
int main()
{
std::vector<Key> keys;
KeyQueue__ *keyQueue = new KeyQueue();
srand(time(NULL));
bool insertKey = true;
for(int i=0; i < 1000; ++i)
{
if(insertKey)
{
Key key = keyQueue->getUniqueKey();
keys.push_back(key);
}
else
{
int index = rand() % keys.size();
Key key = keys[index];
keys.erase(keys.begin()+index);
keyQueue->addKey(key);
}
if(keyQueue->shouldMorph())
{
morph(keyQueue);
}
insertKey = rand() % 3; // more chances of insert
}
}