stl map performance? - c++

Question

I am using map<MyStruct, I*> map1;. Apparently 9% of my total app time is spent in there. Specifically on one line of one of my major functions. The map isn't very big (<1k almost always, <20 is common).
Is there an alternative implementation i may want to use? I think i shouldn't write my own but i could if i thought it was a good idea.
Additional info: I always check before adding an element. If a key exist I need to report a problem. Than after a point i will be using map heavily for lookups and will not add any more elements.

Answer 1

First you need to understand what a map is and what the operations that you are doing represent. A std::map is a balanced binary tree, lookup will take O( log N ) operations, each of which is a comparison of the keys plus some extra that you can ignore in most cases (pointer management). Insertion takes roughly the same time to locate the point of insertion, plus allocation of the new node, the actual insertion into the tree and rebalancing. The complexity is again O( log N ) although the hidden constants are higher.
When you try to determine whether an key is in the map prior to insertion you are incurring the cost of the lookup and if it does not succeed, the same cost to locate the point of insertion. You can avoid the extra cost by using std::map::insert that return a pair with an iterator and a bool telling you whether the insertion actually happened or the element was already there.
Beyond that, you need to understand how costly it is to compare your keys, which falls out of what the question shows (MyStruct could hold just one int or a thousand of them), which is something you need to take into account.
Finally, it might be the case that a map is not the most efficient data structure for your needs, and you might want to consider using either an std::unordered_map (hash table) that has expected constant time insertions (if the hash function is not horrible) or for small data sets even a plain ordered array (or std::vector) on which you can use binary search to locate the elements (this will reduce the number of allocations, at the cost of more expensive insertions, but if the held types are small enough it might be worth it)
As always with performance, measure and then try to understand where the time is being spent. Also note that a 10% of the time spent in a particular function or data structure might be a lot or almost nothing at all, depending on what your application is. For example, if your application is just performing lookups and insertions into a data set, and that takes only a 10% of the CPU you have a lot to optimize everywhere else!

Answer 2

Probably it will be quicker to just do an insert and check if the pair.second is false if key already exists:
like this
if ( myMap.insert( make_pair( MyStruct, I* ) ).second == false)
{
// report error
}
else
// inserted new value
... rather than doing a find call every time.

Answer 3

Instead of map you could try unordered_map which uses hash keys, instead of a tree, to find elements. This answer gives some hints when to prefer unordered_map over map.

Answer 4

It might be a long shot, but for small collections, sometimes the most critical factor is the cache performance.
Since std::map implements a Red-Black Tree, which is [AFAIK] not very cache-efficient - maybe implementing the map as a std::vector<pair<MyStruct,I*>> would be a good idea, and use binary search there [instead of map look-ups], at the very least it should be efficient once you start only looking up [stop inserting elements], since the std::vector is more likely to fit in cache than the map.
This factor [cpu-cache] is usually neglected and hidden as constant in the big O notation, but for large collections it might have major effect.

Answer 5

The way you are using the map, you're doing lookups on the basis of a MyStruct instance and depending on your particular implementation, the required comparison may or may not be costly.

Answer 6

Is there an alternative implementation i may want to use? I think i shouldn't write my own but i could if i thought it was a good idea.
If you understand the problem well enough, you should detail how your implementation will be superior.
Is map the proper structure? If so, then your standard library's implementation will likely be of good quality (well optimized).
Can MyStruct comparison be simplified?
Where is the problem -- resizing? lookup?
Have you minimized copy and assign costs for your structures?

Answer 7

As stated in the comments, without proper code, there is little universal answers to give you. However, if MyStruct is really huge the stack copying may be costly. Perhaps it makes sense to store pointers to MyStruct and implement your own compare mechanism:
template <typename T> struct deref_cmp {
bool operator()(std::shared_ptr<T> lhs, std::shared_ptr<T> rhs) const {
return *lhs < *rhs;
}
};
std::map<std::shared_ptr<MyStruct>, I*, deref_cmp<MyStruct>> mymap;
However, this is something you will have to profile. It might speed things up.
You would look up an element like this
template <typename T> struct NullDeleter {
void operator()(T const*) const {}
};
// needle being a MyStruct
mymap.find(std::shared_ptr<MyStruct>(&needle,NullDeleter()));
Needless to say, there is more potential to optimise.