I have a map of key-value pairs. A priori I don't know it's size, i.e. how many and which keys I will have. Now, within a look, the keys "appear" and I need to increase the value for the corresponding key, each time it appears.
Example:
std::map<int, unsigned int> myMap;
std::vector<int> vectorOfValues; // 123,456,123,789,123,456
for(unsigned int i=0; i<vectorOfValues.size(); ++i) {
myMap[vectorOfValues.at(i)] += 1;
}
So now myMap should contain <123,3>, <456,2>, <789,1>.
Question:
Is this the correct? I'm afraid the using the map without initialising the values isn't a good idea. But I'd like avoid to search for the entry each time I want to increase it.
Cheers!
IMO, it's fine, the unsigned int will be default constructed (i.e. zero initialized), one comment is that the at() call is superfluous - use the operator[] (as you already constrain by size()).
This is correct; previously non-existing values will be initialized to zero.
Related
In my C++ code,
vector <string> strVector = GetStringVector();
vector <int> intVector = GetIntVector();
So I combined these two vectors into a single one,
void combineVectors(vector<string>& strVector, vector <int>& intVector, vector < pair <string, int>>& pairVector)
{
for (int i = 0; i < strVector.size() || i < intVector.size(); ++i )
{
pairVector.push_back(pair<string, int> (strVector.at(i), intVector.at(i)));
}
}
Now this function is called like this,
vector <string> strVector = GetStringVector();
vector <int> intVector = GetIntVector();
vector < pair <string, int>> pairVector
combineVectors(strVector, intVector, pairVector);
//rest of the implementation
The combineVectors function uses a loop to add the elements of other 2 vectors to the vector pair. I doubt this is a efficient way as this function gets called hundrands of times passing different data. This might cause a performance issue because everytime it goes through the loop.
My goal is to copy both the vectors in "one go" to the vector pair. i.e., without using a loop. Am not sure whether that's even possible.
Is there a better way of achieving this without compromising the performance?
You have clarified that the arrays will always be of equal size. That's a prerequisite condition.
So, your situation is as follows. You have vector A over here, and vector B over there. You have no guarantees whether the actual memory that vector A uses and the actual memory that vector B uses are next to each other. They could be anywhere.
Now you're combining the two vectors into a third vector, C. Again, no guarantees where vector C's memory is.
So, you have really very little to work with, in terms of optimizations. You have no additional guarantees whatsoever. This is pretty much fundamental: you have two chunks of bytes, and those two chunks need to be copied somewhere else. That's it. That's what has to be done, that's what it all comes down to, and there is no other way to get it done, other than doing exactly that.
But there is one thing that can be done to make things a little bit faster. A vector will typically allocate memory for its values in incremental steps, reserving some extra space, initially, and as values get added to the vector, one by one, and eventually reach the vector's reserved size, the vector has to now grab a new larger block of memory, copy everything in the vector to the larger memory block, then delete the older block, and only then add the next value to the vector. Then the cycle begins again.
But you know, in advance, how many values you are about to add to the vector, so you simply instruct the vector to reserve() enough size in advance, so it doesn't have to repeatedly grow itself, as you add values to it. Before your existing for loop, simply:
pairVector.reserve(pairVector.size()+strVector.size());
Now, the for loop will proceed and insert new values into pairVector which is guaranteed to have enough space.
A couple of other things are possible. Since you have stated that both vectors will always have the same size, you only need to check the size of one of them:
for (int i = 0; i < strVector.size(); ++i )
Next step: at() performs bounds checking. This loop ensures that i will never be out of bounds, so at()'s bound checking is also some overhead you can get rid of safely:
pairVector.push_back(pair<string, int> (strVector[i], intVector[i]));
Next: with a modern C++ compiler, the compiler should be able to optimize away, automatically, several redundant temporaries, and temporary copies here. It's possible you may need to help the compiler, a little bit, and use emplace_back() instead of push_back() (assuming C++11, or later):
pairVector.emplace_back(strVector[i], intVector[i]);
Going back to the loop condition, strVector.size() gets evaluated on each iteration of the loop. It's very likely that a modern C++ compiler will optimize it away, but just in case you can also help your compiler check the vector's size() only once:
int i=strVector.size();
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i )
This is really a stretch, but it might eke out a few extra quantums of execution time. And that pretty much all obvious optimizations here. Realistically, the most to be gained here is by using reserve(). The other optimizations might help things a little bit more, but it all boils down to moving a certain number of bytes from one area in memory to another area. There aren't really special ways of doing that, that's faster than other ways.
We can use std:generate() to achieve this:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
vector <string> strVector{ "hello", "world" };
vector <int> intVector{ 2, 3 };
pair<string, int> f()
{
static int i = -1;
++i;
return make_pair(strVector[i], intVector[i]);
}
int main() {
int min_Size = min(strVector.size(), intVector.size());
vector< pair<string,int> > pairVector(min_Size);
generate(pairVector.begin(), pairVector.end(), f);
for( int i = 0 ; i < 2 ; i++ )
cout << pairVector[i].first <<" " << pairVector[i].second << endl;
}
I'll try and summarize what you want with some possible answers depending on your situation. You say you want a new vector that is essentially a zipped version of two other vectors which contain two heterogeneous types. Where you can access the two types as some sort of pair?
If you want to make this more efficient, you need to think about what you are using the new vector for? I can see three scenarios with what you are doing.
The new vector is a copy of your data so you can do stuff with it without affecting the original vectors. (ei you still need the original two vectors)
The new vector is now the storage mechanism for your data. (ei you
no longer need the original two vectors)
You are simply coupling the vectors together to make use and representation easier. (ei where they are stored doesn't actually matter)
1) Not much you can do aside from copying the data into your new vector. Explained more in Sam Varshavchik's answer.
3) You do something like Shakil's answer or here or some type of customized iterator.
2) Here you make some optimisations here where you do zero coping of the data with the use of a wrapper class. Note: A wrapper class works if you don't need to use the actual std::vector < std::pair > class. You can make a class where you move the data into it and create access operators for it. If you can do this, it also allows you to decompose the wrapper back into the original two vectors without copying. Something like this might suffice.
class StringIntContainer {
public:
StringIntContaint(std::vector<std::string>& _string_vec, std::vector<int>& _int_vec)
: string_vec_(std::move(_string_vec)), int_vec_(std::move(_int_vec))
{
assert(string_vec_.size() == int_vec_.size());
}
std::pair<std::string, int> operator[] (std::size_t _i) const
{
return std::make_pair(string_vec_[_i], int_vec_[_i]);
}
/* You may want methods that return reference to data so you can edit it*/
std::pair<std::vector<std::string>, std::vector<int>> Decompose()
{
return std::make_pair(std::move(string_vec_), std::move(int_vec_[_i])));
}
private:
std::vector<std::string> _string_vec_;
std::vector<int> int_vec_;
};
OK, so the task is this, I would be given (x, y) co-ordinates of points with both (x, y) ranging from -10^6 to 10^6 inclusive. I have to check whether a particular point e.g. (x, y) tuple was given to me or not. In simple words how do i answer the query whether a particular point(2D) is set or not. So far the best i could think of is maintaining a std::map<std::pair<int,int>, bool> and whenever a point is given I mark it 1. Although this must be running in logarithmic time and is fairly optimized way to answer the query I am wondering if there's a better way to do this.
Also I would be glad if anyone could tell what actually complexity would be if I am using the above data structure as a hash.I mean is it that the complexity of std::map is going to be O(log N) in the size of elements present irrespective of the structure of key?
In order to use a hash map you need to be using std::unordered_map instead of std::map. The constraint of using this is that your value type needs to have a hash function defined for it as described in this answer. Either that or just use boost::hash for this:
std::unordered_map<std::pair<int, int>, boost::hash<std::pair<int, int> > map_of_pairs;
Another method which springs to mind is to store the 32 bit int values in a 64 bit integer like so:
uint64_t i64;
uint32_t a32, b32;
i64 = ((uint64_t)a32 << 32) | b32;
As described in this answer. The x and y components can be stored in the high and low bytes of the integer and then you can use a std::unordered_map<uint64_t, bool>. Although I'd be interested to know if this is any more efficient than the previous method or if it even produces different code.
Instead of mapping each point to a bool, why not store all the points given to you in a set? Then, you can simply search the set to see if it contains the point you are looking for. It is essentially the same as what you are doing without having to do an additional lookup of the associated bool. For example:
set<pair<int, int>> points;
Then, you can check whether the set contains a certain point or not like this :
pair<int, int> examplePoint = make_pair(0, 0);
set<pair<int, int>>::iterator it = points.find(examplePoint);
if (it == points.end()) {
// examplePoint not found
} else {
// examplePoint found
}
As mentioned, std::set is normally implemented as a balanced binary search tree, so each lookup would take O(logn) time.
If you wanted to use a hash table instead, you could do the same thing using std::unordered_set instead of std::set. Assuming you use a good hash function, this would speed your lookups up to O(1) time. However, in order to do this, you will have to define the hash function for pair<int, int>. Here is an example taken from this answer:
namespace std {
template <> struct hash<std::pair<int, int>> {
inline size_t operator()(const std::pair<int, int> &v) const {
std::hash<int> int_hasher;
return int_hasher(v.first) ^ int_hasher(v.second);
}
};
}
Edit: Nevermind, I see you already got it working!
Suppose you have a std::vector<std::map<std::string, T> >. You know that all the maps have the same keys. They might have been initialized with
typedef std::map<std::string, int> MapType;
std::vector<MapType> v;
const int n = 1000000;
v.reserve(n);
for (int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
std::map<std::string, int> m;
m["abc"] = rand();
m["efg"] = rand();
m["hij"] = rand();
v.push_back(m);
}
Given a key (e.g. "efg"), I would like to extract all values of the maps for the given key (which definitely exists in every map).
Is it possible to speed up the following code?
std::vector<int> efgValues;
efgValues.reserve(v.size());
BOOST_FOREACH(MapType const& m, v)
{
efgValues.push_back(m.find("efg")->second);
}
Note that the values are not necessarily int. As profiling confirms that most time is spent in the find function, I was thinking about whether there is a (GCC and MSVC compliant C++03) way to avoid locating the element in the map based on the key for every single map again, because the structure of all the maps is equal.
If no, would it be possible with boost::unordered_map (which is 15% slower on my machine with the code above)? Would it be possible to cache the hash value of the string?
P.S.: I know that having a std::map<std::string, std::vector<T> > would solve my problem. However, I cannot change the data structure (which is actually more complex than what I showed here).
You can cache and playback the sequence of comparison results using a stateful comparator. But that's just nasty; the solution is to adjust the data structure. There's no "cannot." Actually, adding a stateful comparator is changing the data structure. That requirement rules out almost anything.
Another possibility is to create a linked list across the objects of type T so you can get from each map to the next without another lookup. If you might be starting at any of the maps (please, just refactor the structure) then a circular or doubly-linked list will do the trick.
As profiling confirms that most time is spent in the find function
Keeping the tree data structures and optimizing the comparison can only speed up the comparison. Unless the time is spent in operator< (std::string const&, std::string const&), you need to change the way it's linked together.
UPDATED:
I am working on a program whose performance is very critical. I have a vector of structs that are NOT sorted. I need to perform many search operations in this vector. So I decided to cache the vector data into a map like this:
std::map<long, int> myMap;
for (int i = 0; i < myVector.size(); ++i)
{
const Type& theType = myVector[i];
myMap[theType.key] = i;
}
When I search the map, the results of the rest of the program are much faster. However, the remaining bottleneck is the creation of the map itself (it is taking about 0.8 milliseconds on average to insert about 1,500 elements in it). I need to figure out a way to trim this time down. I am simply inserting a long as the key and an int as the value. I don't understand why it is taking this long.
Another idea I had was to create a copy of the vector (can't touch the original one) and somehow perform a faster sort than the std::sort (it takes way too long to sort it).
Edit:
Sorry everyone. I meant to say that I am creating a std::map where the key is a long and the value is an int. The long value is the struct's key value and the int is the index of the corresponding element in the vector.
Also, I did some more debugging and realized that the vector is not sorted at all. It's completely random. So doing something like a stable_sort isn't going to work out.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Thanks everyone for the responses. I ended up creating a vector of pairs (std::vector of std::pair(long, int)). Then I sorted the vector by the long value. I created a custom comparator that only looked at the first part of the pair. Then I used lower_bound to search for the pair. Here's how I did it all:
typedef std::pair<long,int> Key2VectorIndexPairT;
typedef std::vector<Key2VectorIndexPairT> Key2VectorIndexPairVectorT;
bool Key2VectorIndexPairComparator(const Key2VectorIndexPairT& pair1, const Key2VectorIndexPairT& pair2)
{
return pair1.first < pair2.first;
}
...
Key2VectorIndexPairVectorT sortedVector;
sortedVector.reserve(originalVector.capacity());
// Assume "original" vector contains unsorted elements.
for (int i = 0; i < originalVector.size(); ++i)
{
const TheStruct& theStruct = originalVector[i];
sortedVector.insert(Key2VectorIndexPairT(theStruct.key, i));
}
std::sort(sortedVector.begin(), sortedVector.end(), Key2VectorIndexPairComparator);
...
const long keyToSearchFor = 20;
const Key2VectorIndexPairVectorT::const_iterator cItorKey2VectorIndexPairVector = std::lower_bound(sortedVector.begin(), sortedVector.end(), Key2VectorIndexPairT(keyToSearchFor, 0 /* Provide dummy index value for search */), Key2VectorIndexPairComparator);
if (cItorKey2VectorIndexPairVector->first == keyToSearchFor)
{
const int vectorIndex = cItorKey2VectorIndexPairVector->second;
const TheStruct& theStruct = originalVector[vectorIndex];
// Now do whatever you want...
}
else
{
// Could not find element...
}
This yielded a modest performance gain for me. Before the total time for my calculations were 3.75 milliseconds and now it is down to 2.5 milliseconds.
Both std::map and std::set are built on a binary tree and so adding items does dynamic memory allocation. If your map is largely static (i.e. initialized once at the start and then rarely or never has new items added or removed) you'd probably be better to use a sorted vector and a std::lower_bound to look up items using a binary search.
Maps take a lot of time for two reasons
You need to do a lot of memory allocation for your data storage
You need to perform O(n lg n) comparisons for the sort.
If you are just creating this as one batch, then throwing the whole map out, using a custom pool allocator may be a good idea here - eg, boost's pool_alloc. Custom allocators can also apply optimizations such as not actually deallocating any memory until the map's completely destroyed, etc.
Since your keys are integers, you may want to consider writing your own container based on a radix tree (on the bits of the key) as well. This may give you significantly improved performance, but since there is no STL implementation, you may need to write your own.
If you don't need to sort the data, use a hash table, such as std::unordered_map; these avoid the significant overhead needed for sorting data, and also can reduce the amount of memory allocation needed.
Finally, depending on the overall design of the program, it may be helpful to simply reuse the same map instead of recreating it over and over. Just delete and add keys as needed, rather than building a new vector, then building a new map. Again, this may not be possible in the context of your program, but if it is, it would definitely help you.
I suspect it's the memory management and tree rebalancing that's costing you here.
Obviously profiling may be able to help you pinpoint the issue.
I would suggest as a general idea to just copy the long/int data you need into another vector and since you said it's almost sorted, use stable_sort on it to finish the ordering. Then use lower_bound to locate the items in the sorted vector.
std::find is a linear scan(it has to be since it works on unsorted data). If you can sort(std::sort guaranties n log(n) behavior) the data then you can use std::binary_search to get log(n) searches. But as pointed out by others it may be copy time is the problem.
If keys are solid and short, perhaps try std::hash_map instead. From MSDN's page on hash_map Class:
The main advantage of hashing over sorting is greater efficiency; a
successful hashing performs insertions, deletions, and finds in
constant average time as compared with a time proportional to the
logarithm of the number of elements in the container for sorting
techniques.
Map creation can be a performance bottleneck (in the sense that it takes a measurable amount of time) if you're creating a large map and you're copying large chunks of data into it. You're also using the obvious (but suboptimal) way of inserting elements into a std::map - if you use something like:
myMap.insert(std::make_pair(theType.key, theType));
this should improve the insertion speed, but it will result in a slight change in behaviour if you encounter duplicate keys - using insert will result in values for duplicate keys being dropped, whereas using your method, the last element with the duplicate key will be inserted into the map.
I would also look into avoiding a making a copy of the data (for example by storing a pointer to it instead) if your profiling results determine that it's the copying of the element that is expensive. But for that you'll have to profile the code, IME guesstimates tend to be wrong...
Also, as a side note, you might want to look into storing the data in a std::set using custom comparator as your contains the key already. That however will not really result in a big speed up as constructing a set in this case is likely to be as expensive as inserting it into a map.
I'm not a C++ expert, but it seems that your problem stems from copying the Type instances, instead of a reference/pointer to the Type instances.
std::map<Type> myMap; // <-- this is wrong, since std::map requires two template parameters, not one
If you add elements to the map and they're not pointers, then I believe the copy constructor is invoked and that will certainly cause delays with a large data structure. Use the pointer instead:
std::map<KeyType, ObjectType*> myMap;
Furthermore, your example is a little confusing since you "insert" a value of type int in the map when you're expecting a value of type Type. I think you should assign the reference to the item, not the index.
myMap[theType.key] = &myVector[i];
Update:
The more I look at your example, the more confused I get. If you're using the std::map, then it should take two template types:
map<T1,T2> aMap;
So what are you REALLY mapping? map<Type, int> or something else?
It seems that you're using the Type.key member field as a key to the map (it's a valid idea), but unless key is of the same type as Type, then you can't use it as the key to the map. So is key an instance of Type??
Furthermore, you're mapping the current vector index to the key in the map, which indicates that you're just want the index to the vector so you can later access that index location fast. Is that what you want to do?
Update 2.0:
After reading your answer it seems that you're using std::map<long,int> and in that case there is no copying of the structure involved. Furthermore, you don't need to make a local reference to the object in the vector. If you just need to access the key, then access it by calling myVector[i].key.
Your building a copy of the table from the broken example you give, and not just a reference.
Why Can't I store references in an STL map in C++?
Whatever you store in the map it relies on you not changing the vector.
Try a lookup map only.
typedef vector<Type> Stuff;
Stuff myVector;
typedef std::map<long, *Type> LookupMap;
LookupMap myMap;
LookupMap::iterator hint = myMap.begin();
for (Stuff::iterator it = myVector.begin(); myVector.end() != it; ++it)
{
hint = myMap.insert(hint, std::make_pair(it->key, &*it));
}
Or perhaps drop the vector and just store it in the map??
Since your vector is already partially ordered, you may want to instead create an auxiliary array referencing (indices of) the elements in your original vector. Then you can sort the auxiliary array using Timsort which has good performance for partially sorted data (such as yours).
I think you've got some other problem. Creating a vector of 1500 <long, int> pairs, and sorting it based on the longs should take considerably less than 0.8 milliseconds (at least assuming we're talking about a reasonably modern, desktop/server type processor).
To try to get an idea of what we should see here, I did a quick bit of test code:
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
#include <time.h>
#include <iostream>
int main() {
const int size = 1500;
const int reps = 100;
std::vector<std::pair<long, int> > init;
std::vector<std::pair<long, int> > data;
long total = 0;
// Generate "original" array
for (int i=0; i<size; i++)
init.push_back(std::make_pair(rand(), i));
clock_t start = clock();
for (int i=0; i<reps; i++) {
// copy the original array
std::vector<std::pair<long, int> > data(init.begin(), init.end());
// sort the copy
std::sort(data.begin(), data.end());
// use data that depends on sort to prevent it being optimized away
total += data[10].first;
total += data[size-10].first;
}
clock_t stop = clock();
std::cout << "Ignore: " << total << "\n";
clock_t ticks = stop - start;
double seconds = ticks / (double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
double ms = seconds * 1000.0;
double ms_p_iter = ms / reps;
std::cout << ms_p_iter << " ms/iteration.";
return 0;
}
Running this on my somewhat "trailing edge" (~5 year-old) machine, I'm getting times around 0.1 ms/iteration. I'd expect searching in this (using std::lower_bound or std::upper_bound) to be somewhat faster than searching in an std::map as well (since the data in the vector is allocated contiguously, we can expect better locality of reference, leading to better cache usage).
Thanks everyone for the responses. I ended up creating a vector of pairs (std::vector of std::pair(long, int)). Then I sorted the vector by the long value. I created a custom comparator that only looked at the first part of the pair. Then I used lower_bound to search for the pair. Here's how I did it all:
typedef std::pair<long,int> Key2VectorIndexPairT;
typedef std::vector<Key2VectorIndexPairT> Key2VectorIndexPairVectorT;
bool Key2VectorIndexPairComparator(const Key2VectorIndexPairT& pair1, const Key2VectorIndexPairT& pair2)
{
return pair1.first < pair2.first;
}
...
Key2VectorIndexPairVectorT sortedVector;
sortedVector.reserve(originalVector.capacity());
// Assume "original" vector contains unsorted elements.
for (int i = 0; i < originalVector.size(); ++i)
{
const TheStruct& theStruct = originalVector[i];
sortedVector.insert(Key2VectorIndexPairT(theStruct.key, i));
}
std::sort(sortedVector.begin(), sortedVector.end(), Key2VectorIndexPairComparator);
...
const long keyToSearchFor = 20;
const Key2VectorIndexPairVectorT::const_iterator cItorKey2VectorIndexPairVector = std::lower_bound(sortedVector.begin(), sortedVector.end(), Key2VectorIndexPairT(keyToSearchFor, 0 /* Provide dummy index value for search */), Key2VectorIndexPairComparator);
if (cItorKey2VectorIndexPairVector->first == keyToSearchFor)
{
const int vectorIndex = cItorKey2VectorIndexPairVector->second;
const TheStruct& theStruct = originalVector[vectorIndex];
// Now do whatever you want...
}
else
{
// Could not find element...
}
This yielded a modest performance gain for me. Before the total time for my calculations were 3.75 milliseconds and now it is down to 2.5 milliseconds.
I have a problem getting boost::multi_index_container work with random-access and with orderd_unique at the same time. (I'm sorry for the lengthly question, but I think I should use an example..)
Here an example: Suppose I want to produce N objects in a factory and for each object I have a demand to fulfill (this demand is known at creation of the multi-index).
Well, within my algorithm I get intermediate results, which I store in the following class:
class intermediate_result
{
private:
std::vector<int> parts; // which parts are produced
int used_time; // how long did it take to produce
ValueType max_value; // how much is it worth
};
The vector parts descibes, which objects are produced (its length is N and it is lexicographically smaller then my coresp demand-vector!) - for each such vector I know the used_time as well. Additionally I get a value for this vector of produced objects.
I got another constraint so that I can't produce every object - my algorithm needs to store several intermediate_result-objects in a data-structure. And here boost::multi_index_container is used, because the pair of parts and used_time describes a unique intermediate_result (and it should be unique in my data-structure) but the max_value is another index I'll have to consider, because my algorithm always needs the intermediate_result with the highest max_value.
So I tried to use boost::multi_index_container with ordered_unique<> for my "parts&used_time-pair" and ordered_non_unique<> for my max_value (different intermediate_result-objects may have the same value).
The problem is: the predicate, which is needed to decide which "parts&used_time-pair" is smaller, uses std::lexicographical_compare on my parts-vector and hence is very slow for many intermediate_result-objects.
But there would be a solution: my demand for each object isn't that high, therefore I could store on each possible parts-vector the intermediate results uniquely by its used_time.
For example: if I have a demand-vector ( 2 , 3 , 1) then I need a data-structure which stores (2+1)*(3+1)*(1+1)=24 possible parts-vectors and on each such entry the different used_times, which have to be unique! (storing the smallest time is insufficient - for example: if my additional constraint is: to meet a given time exactly for production)
But how do I combine a random_access<>-index with an ordered_unique<>-index?
(Example11 didn't help me on this one..)
To use two indices you could write the following:
indexed_by<
random_access< >,
ordered_unique<
composite_key<
intermediate_result,
member<intermediate_result, int, &intermediate_result::used_time>,
member<intermediate_result, std::vector<int>, &intermediate_result::parts>
>
>
>
You could use composite_key for comparing used_time at first and vector only if necessary. Besides that, keep in mind that you could use member function as index.
(I had to use an own answer to write code-blocks - sorry!)
The composite_key with used_time and parts (as Kirill V. Lyadvinsky suggested) is basically what I've already implemented. I want to get rid of the lexicographical compare of the parts-vector.
Suppose I've stored the needed_demand somehow then I could write a simple function, which returns the correct index within a random-access data-structure like that:
int get_index(intermediate_result &input_result) const
{
int ret_value = 0;
int index_part = 1;
for(int i=0;i<needed_demand.size();++i)
{
ret_value += input_result.get_part(i) * index_part;
index_part *= (needed_demand.get_part(i) + 1);
}
}
Obviously this can be implemented more efficiently and this is not the only possible index ordering for the needed demand. But let's suppose this function exists as a member-function of intermediate_result! Is it possible to write something like this to prevent lexicographical_compare ?
indexed_by<
random_access< >,
ordered_unique<
composite_key<
intermediate_result,
member<intermediate_result, int, &intermediate_result::used_time>,
const_mem_fun<intermediate_result,int,&intermediate_result::get_index>
>
>
>
If this is possible and I initialized the multi-index with all possible parts-vectors (i.e. in my comment above I would've pushed 24 empty maps in my data-structure), does this find the right entry for a given intermediate_result in constant time (after computing the correct index with get_index) ?
I have to ask this, because I don't quite see, how the random_access<> index is linked with the ordered_unique<> index..
But thank you for your answers so far!!