I am confused. I don't know what containers should I use. I tell you what I need first. Basically I need a container that can stored X number of Object (and the number of objects is unknown, it could be 1 - 50k).
I read a lot, over here array vs list its says: array need to be resized if the number of objects is unknown (I am not sure how to resize an array in C++), and it also stated that if using a linked list, if you want to search certain item, it will loop through (iterate) from first to end (or vice versa) while an array can specify "array object at index".
Then I went for an other solution, map, vector, etc. Like this one: array vs vector. Some responder says never use array.
I am new to C++, I only used array, vector, list and map before. Now, for my case, what kind of container you will recommend me to use? Let me rephrase my requirements:
Need to be a container
The number of objects stored is unknown but is huge (1 - 40k maybe)
I need to loop through the containers to find specific object
std::vector is what you need.
You have to consider 2 things when selecting a stl container.
Data you want to store
Operations you want to perform on the stored data
There wasa good diagram in a question here on SO, which depitcs this, I cannot find the link to it but I had it saved long time ago, here it is:
You cannot resize an array in C++, not sure where you got that one from. The container you need is std::vector.
The general rule is: use std::vector until it doesn't work, then shift to something that does. There are all sorts of theoretical rules about which one is better, depending on the operations, but I've regularly found that std::vector outperforms the others, even when the most frequent operations are things where std::vector is supposedly worse. Locality seems more important than most of the theoretical considerations on a modern machine.
The one reason you might shift from std::vector is because of iterator validity. Inserting into an std::vector may invalidate iterators; inserting into a std::list never.
Do you need to loop through the container, or you have a key or ID for your objects?
If you have a key or ID - you can use map to be able to quickly access the object by it, if the id is the simple index - then you can use vector.
Otherwise you can iterate through any container (they all have iterators) but list would be the best if you want to be memory efficient, and vector if you want to be performance oriented.
You can use vector. But if you need to find objects in the container, then consider using set, multiset or map.
Related
I've lots of data to acquire and process (near a million) and i don't wanna copy or move it along the whole program.
Let me describe the situation with an example. I have a Vector with 100.000 elements. And i want to keep the track of the time when these elements were inserted into the vector. So, it's a good idea to keep both time and data in a Map. However, i still want to use the Vector.
Is there any way to achieve that second elements of Map shows the Vector but not waste any resource unnecessarily?
The first thing that comes to my mind is containing the adress of datas in Vector. However, pointers use 4 bytes(not sure) and for example, if we wanna contain the address of char, it is 4 times bigger than the data itself.
Any ideas ?
I'd say it's not solely a question of memory consumption, but of consistency also. Depends on how you're going to use various views on your original input data. In general I'd advise using std::unique_ptr for the original data and std::weak_ptr for reference in views.
But you're right that might have a certain memory usage overhead because of pointer sizes exceed size of the pointee objects.
For the latter case having a kind of FlyWeight pattern implementation might be more appropriate.
Containing single data in multiple containers
Yes, you can use the Boost Multi-index Containers Library to index the same data in more than one way with no duplication of content. Unlike homebrew XXX_ptr solutions, the multi-index containers also takes care of keeping everything coherent (removing a data unit from the container automatically elides it from all indexes.)
Lighter weight, more specialized solutions (and possibly more efficient than either muklti-index containers and/or homebrew XXX_ptr solutions) may also be possible depending on your application's requirements, particularities and data insertion/lifecycle patterns:
Do you need the memory layout of your original vector to remain unchanged, or can you accommodate a vector of some derived type?
Will your vector contents change? can it grow?
Will the elements therein be (inserted & kept) in chronological order anyway?
Do you need to look up a vector element by insertion time in addition to vector position?
I have a very large list of items (~2 millions) that I want to optimize for access speed. I iterate trough the items using an iterator (++it).
Right now the code is implemented using std:map<std::wstring, STRUCT>.
I wonder if it's worth to change std::map with a std::deque<std::pair<std::wstring, STRUCT>>. I think I would have advantage of using pointer arithmetic and minimize cache miss. It worths ?
I know that profiling is the answer but I need an opinion before implementing this ...
If you know in advance the size, then std::Vector is clearly the way to go it your objects aren't too big.
std::vector<Object> list;
list.reserve(2000000);
And then fill it as usual.
This is the fastest and least memory consuming approach. However, you need to be able to allocate enought continous memory. But excepted if your object are 1kb big, it shouldn't be a problem.
With deque, you would lose ( or would have to re-implement ) the advantage of Key-Value pairs. If it's not essential for your data, I would consider using deque.
Generally, if you're only doing search in this set (no insertions/deletions), you're probably better off using a sorted sequential cointainer, like deque or vector. You can then use simple binary search to find the needed elements. The advantage of using a sequential container is that it is better in terms of memory usage, has very simple implementation, and provides better locality of reference. I'd write one version of the code using vector, and another version of the code using deque, then compare them in terms of preformance to decide which one to use in the final version.
However, if your structure needs to be updated (new elements need to be inserted or old elements have to be deleted frequently), map is better choice. Or maybe, you just have to drop STL containers altogether and just use an in-memory database (see SQLite), but it highly depends on what problem you're solving.
The fastest container to iterate through is usually a vector, so if you want to optimize for iteration at the expense of everything else, use that.
Overall app performance of course will depend how many times you iterate, and how you construct your data in the first place. For a simple test, once your map has been populated you can construct a vector from it as follows:
vector<pair<K,V> > myvec(mymap.begin(), mymap.end());
Where K and V are the key and value types of the map. Then just use the vector iterators in place of the map iterators and compare performance.
Of course, if you want to modify the map in future, then normally it would not be appropriate to optimize for iteration at the expense of everything else.
I've got a situation where I want to use an associative container, and I chose to use a std::unordered_map, because it's perfectly feasible that this container could be used to hold millions or more of elements. But now I also need to iterate in order. I considered having the value types link to each other in a list, but now I'm going to have issues with memory management.
Should I change container, say to a std::map? Or just iterate once through my unordered_map, insert into a vector, and sort, then iterate? It's pretty unlikely that I will need to iterate in an ordered fashion repeatedly.
Well, you know the O() of the various operations of the two alternatives you've picked. You should pick based on that and do a cost/benefit analysis based on where you need the performance to happen and which container does best for THAT.
Of course, I couldn't possibly know enough to do that analysis for you.
You could use Boost.MultiIndex, specifying the unordered (hashed) index as well as an ordered one, on the same underlying object collection.
Possible issues with this - there is no natural mapping from an existing associative container model, and it might be overkill if you don't need the second index all the time.
I am maintaining a fixed-length table of 10 entries. Each item is a structure of like 4 fields. There will be insert, update and delete operations, specified by numeric position. I am wondering which is the best data structure to use to maintain this table of information:
array - insert/delete takes linear time due to shifting; update takes constant time; no space is used for pointers; accessing an item using [] is faster.
stl vector - insert/delete takes linear time due to shifting; update takes constant time; no space is used for pointers; accessing an item is slower than an array since it is a call to operator[] and a linked list .
stl list - insert and delete takes linear time since you need to iterate to a specific position before applying the insert/delete; additional space is needed for pointers; accessing an item is slower than an array since it is a linked list linear traversal.
Right now, my choice is to use an array. Is it justifiable? Or did I miss something?
Which is faster: traversing a list, then inserting a node or shifting items in an array to produce an empty position then inserting the item in that position?
What is the best way to measure this performance? Can I just display the timestamp before and after the operations?
Use STL vector. It provides an equally rich interface as list and removes the pain of managing memory that arrays require.
You will have to try very hard to expose the performance cost of operator[] - it usually gets inlined.
I do not have any number to give you, but I remember reading performance analysis that described how vector<int> was faster than list<int> even for inserts and deletes (under a certain size of course). The truth of the matter is that these processors we use are very fast - and if your vector fits in L2 cache, then it's going to go really really fast. Lists on the other hand have to manage heap objects that will kill your L2.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
Based on your post, I'd say there's no reason to make your choice of data structure here a performance based one. Pick whatever is most convenient and return to change it if and only if performance testing demonstrates it's a problem.
It is really worth investing some time in understanding the fundamental differences between lists and vectors.
The most significant difference between the two is the way they store elements and keep track of them.
- Lists -
List contains elements which have the address of a previous and next element stored in them. This means that you can INSERT or DELETE an element anywhere in the list with constant speed O(1) regardless of the list size. You also splice (insert another list) into the existing list anywhere with constant speed as well. The reason is that list only needs to change two pointers (the previous and next) for the element we are inserting into the list.
Lists are not good if you need random access. So if one plans to access nth element in the list - one has to traverse the list one by one - O(n) speed
- Vectors -
Vector contains elements in sequence, just like an array. This is very convenient for random access. Accessing the "nth" element in a vector is a simple pointer calculation (O(1) speed). Adding elements to a vector is, however, different. If one wants to add an element in the middle of a vector - all the elements that come after that element will have to be re allocated down to make room for the new entry. The speed will depend on the vector size and on the position of the new element. The worst case scenario is inserting an element at position 2 in a vector, the best one is appending a new element. Therefore - insert works with speed O(n), where "n" is the number of elements that need to be moved - not necessarily the size of a vector.
There are other differences that involve memory requirements etc., but understanding these basic principles of how lists and vectors actually work is really worth spending some time on.
As always ... "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" so first consider what is more convenient and make things work exactly the way you want them, then optimize. For 10 entries that you mention - it really does not matter what you use - you will never be able to see any kind of performance difference whatever method you use.
Prefer an std::vector over and array. Some advantages of vector are:
They allocate memory from the free space when increasing in size.
They are NOT a pointer in disguise.
They can increase/decrease in size run-time.
They can do range checking using at().
A vector knows its size, so you don't have to count elements.
The most compelling reason to use a vector is that it frees you from explicit memory management, and it does not leak memory. A vector keeps track of the memory it uses to store its elements. When a vector needs more memory for elements, it allocates more; when a vector goes out of scope, it frees that memory. Therefore, the user need not be concerned with the allocation and deallocation of memory for vector elements.
You're making assumptions you shouldn't be making, such as "accessing an item is slower than an array since it is a call to operator[]." I can understand the logic behind it, but you nor I can know until we profile it.
If you do, you'll find there is no overhead at all, when optimizations are turned on. The compiler inlines the function calls. There is a difference in memory performance. An array is statically allocated, while a vector dynamically allocates. A list allocates per node, which can throttle cache if you're not careful.
Some solutions are to have the vector allocate from the stack, and have a pool allocator for a list, so that the nodes can fit into cache.
So rather than worry about unsupported claims, you should worry about making your design as clean as possible. So, which makes more sense? An array, vector, or list? I don't know what you're trying to do so I can't answer you.
The "default" container tends to be a vector. Sometimes an array is perfectly acceptable too.
First a couple of notes:
A good rule of thumb about selecting data structures: Generally, if you examined all the possibilities and determined that an array is your best choice, start over. You did something very wrong.
STL lists don't support operator[], and if they did the reason that it would be slower than indexing an array has nothing to do with the overhead of a function call.
Those things being said, vector is the clear winner here. The call to operator[] is essentially negligible since the contents of a vector are guaranteed to be contiguous in memory. It supports insert() and erase() operations which you would essntially have to write yourself if you used an array. Basically it boils down to the fact that a vector is essentially an upgraded array which already supports all the operations you need.
I am maintaining a fixed-length table of 10 entries. Each item is a
structure of like 4 fields. There will be insert, update and delete
operations, specified by numeric position. I am wondering which is the
best data structure to use to maintain this table of information:
Based on this description it seems like list might be the better choice since its O(1) when inserting and deleting in the middle of the data structure. Unfortunately you cannot use numeric positions when using lists to do inserts and deletes like you can for arrays/vectors. This dilemma leads to a slew of questions which can be used to make an initial decision of which structure may be best to use. This structure can later be changed if testing clearly shows its the wrong choice.
The questions you need to ask are three fold. The first is how often are you planning on doing deletes/inserts in the middle relative to random reads. The second is how important is using a numeric position compared to an iterator. Finally, is order in your structure important.
If the answer to the first question is random reads will be more prevalent than a vector/array will probably work well. Note iterating through a data structure is not considered a random read even if the operator[] notation is used. For the second question, if you absolutely require numeric position than a vector/array will be required even though this may lead to a performance hit. Later testing may show this performance hit is negligible relative to the easier coding with numerical positions. Finally if order is unimportant you can insert and delete in a vector/array with an O(1) algorithm. A sample algorithm is shown below.
template <class T>
void erase(vector<T> & vect, int index) //note: vector cannot be const since you are changing vector
{
vect[index]= vect.back();//move the item in the back to the index
vect.pop_back(); //delete the item in the back
}
template <class T>
void insert(vector<T> & vect, int index, T value) //note: vector cannot be const since you are changing vector
{
vect.push_back(vect[index]);//insert the item at index to the back of the vector
vect[index] = value; //replace the item at index with value
}
I Believe it's as per your need if one needs more insert/to delete in starting or middle use list(doubly-linked internally) if one needs to access data randomly and addition to last element use array ( vector have dynamic allocation but if you require more operation as a sort, resize, etc use vector)
I have created a container for generic, weak-type data which is accessible through the subscript operator.
The std::map container allows both data access and element insertion through the operator, whereas std::vector I think doesn't.
What is the best (C++ style) way to proceed? Should I allow allocation through the subscript operator or have a separate insert method?
EDIT
I should say, I'm not asking if I should use vector or map, I just wanted to know what people thought about accessing and inserting being combined in this way.
In the case of Vectors: Subscript notation does not insert -- it overwrites.
This rest of this post distils the information from item 1-5 of Effective STL.
If you know the range of your data before hand -- and the size is fixed -- and you won't insert at locations which has data above it -- then you can use insert into vectors without unpleasant side-effects.
However in the general case vector insertions have implications such as shifting members upward and doubling memory when exhausted (which causes a flood of copies from the old vector's objects to locations in the new vector ) when you make ad hoc insertions. Vectors are designed for when you know the locality characteristics of your data..
Vectors come with an insert member function... and this function is very clever with most implementations in that it can infer optimizations from the iterators your supply. Can't you just use this ?
If you want to do ad-hoc insertions of data, you should use a list. Perhaps you can use a list to collect the data and then once its finalized populate a vector using the range based insert or range based constructor ?
it depends what you want. A map can be significantly slower than a vector if you wish to use the thing like an array. A map is very helpful if the index you want to use is non-sequential and you have LOADS of them. Its usually quicker to just use a vector, sort it and do a binary search to find what you are after. I've used this method to replace maps in tonnes of software and I still haven't found something where it was slower to do this with a vector.
So, IMO, std::vector is the better way, though a map MIGHT be useful if you are using it properly.
Separate insert method, definitely. The operator[] on std::map is just stupid and makes the code hard to read and debug.
Also you can't access data from a const context if you're using a operator[] to insert (which will lead to un-const-cancer, the even-more evil cousin of const-cancer).