In Smalltalk, you can create a sortedCollection, which is to say that you can add an element and it would insert it into the correct location.
Is there anything like this in C++? Or even better is there anything like a sortedQueue, such that when you add an element, it would sort it into a queue like structure that you can just pop the first element off of?
I looked into set, this is what I need in terms of sorting, but it is an unordered collection. I am looking for a small run time as possible.
There are four sorted containers in the C++ standard library:
std::set - A sorted sequence of unique values.
std::map - A sorted sequence of unique key/value pairs.
std::multiset - A sorted sequence of values (possible repeats).
std::multimap - A sorted sequence of key/value pairs (possible repeats).
If you just want a sorted queue, then what you are looking for is std::priority_queue, which is a container adaptor rather than a stand-alone container.
#include <queue>
int main()
{
std::priority_queue<int> q;
q.push(2);
q.push(3);
q.push(1);
assert(q.top() == 3); q.pop();
assert(q.top() == 2); q.pop();
assert(q.top() == 1); q.pop();
return 0;
}
If you want to store your own types in a priority_queue then you need to define operator< for your class.
class Person
{
public:
Person(int age) : m_age(age) {}
bool operator<(const Person& other) const
{
return m_age < other.m_age;
}
private:
int m_age;
};
Creating a priority_queue of Persons would then give you a queue with the oldest people at the front.
The STL container choice flowchart (from this question):
You seem to be looking for the std::priority_queue, which is located in the <queue> header file. With push(), you can insert an element into the priority queue; with top(), you will get the currently largest element in the queue (or the smallest one, depending on how you implement operator<); and with pop(), you will remove the largest/smallest element.
As far as I know, it's implemented with a heap, which makes the time complexity of each push and pop operation O(lg n). Simply looking at the top element is done in O(1).
std::map for sorted container
std::queue for queue.
std::priority_queue for sorted queue
std::set is an ordered collection; iterating over it will give you the elements in order (either as defined by the < operator or a custom predicate). Finding and removing the first element are O(1).
Alternatively you could use std::priority_queue, which is basically a heap and allows efficient insert and least item removal.
In fact it's harder to find unordered (hashed) containers - they weren't part of the original standard, although they were widely available in non-standard form.
Of course you may find that simply holding your items in a sorted vector is faster, even if it is theoretically slower, if the number of items is not significantly large.
Related
If I have a structure like
std::map<string, int> myMap;
myMap["banana"] = 1;
myMap["apple"] = 1;
myMap["orange"] = 1;
How can I access myMap[0]?
I know that the map sorts internally and I'm fine with this, I want to get a value in the map by index. I've tried myMap[0] but I get the error:
Error 1 error C2679: binary '[' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'int' (or there is no acceptable conversion)
I realise I could do something like this:
string getKeyAtIndex (int index){
map<string, int>::const_iterator end = myMap.end();
int counter = 0;
for (map<string, int>::const_iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != end; ++it) {
counter++;
if (counter == index)
return it->first;
}
}
But surely this is hugely inefficient? Is there a better way?
Your map is not supposed to be accessed that way, it's indexed by keys not by positions. A map iterator is bidirectional, just like a list, so the function you are using is no more inefficient than accessing a list by position. If you want random access by position then use a vector or a deque.
Your function could be written with help from std::advance(iter, index) starting from begin():
auto it = myMap.begin();
std::advance(it, index);
return it->first;
There may be an implementation specific (non-portable) method to achieve your goal, but not one that is portable.
In general, the std::map is implemented as a type of binary tree, usually sorted by key. The definition of the first element differs depending on the ordering. Also, in your definition, is element[0] the node at the top of the tree or the left-most leaf node?
Many binary trees are implemented as linked lists. Most linked lists cannot be directly accessed like an array, because to find element 5, you have to follow the links. This is by definition.
You can resolve your issue by using both a std::vector and a std::map:
Allocate the object from dynamic memory.
Store the pointer, along with the key, into the std::map.
Store the pointer in the std::vector at the position you want it
at.
The std::map will allow an efficient method to access the object by key.
The std::vector will allow an efficient method to access the object by index.
Storing pointers allows for only one instance of the object instead of having to maintain multiple copies.
Well, actually you can't. The way you found is very unefficient, it have a computational complexity of O(n) (n operations worst case, where n is the number of elements in a map).
Accessing an item in a vector or in an array have complexity O(1) by comparison (constant computational complexity, a single operation).
Consider that map is internally implemented as a red black tree (or avl tree, it depends on the implementation) and every insert, delete and lookup operation are O(log n) worst case (it requires logarithm in base 2 operations to find an element in the tree), that is quite good.
A way you can deal with is to use a custom class that have inside both a vector and a map.
Insertion at the end of the class will be averaged O(1), lookup by name will be O(log n), lookup by index will be O(1) but in this case, removal operation will be O(n).
Previous answer (see comment): How about just myMap.begin();
You could implement a random-access map by using a vector backing-store, which is essentially a vector of pairs. You of course lose all the benefits of the standard library map at that point.
you can use some other map like containers .
keep a size fields can make binary search tree easy to random access .
here is my implementation ...
std style , random access iterator ...
size balanced tree ...
https://github.com/mm304321141/zzz_lib/blob/master/sbtree.h
and B+tree ...
https://github.com/mm304321141/zzz_lib/blob/master/bpptree.h
std::map is an ordered container, but it's iterators don't support random access, but rather bidirectional access. Therefore, you can only access the nth element by navigating all its prior elements. A shorter alternative to your example is using the standard iterator library:
std::pair<const std::string, int> &nth_element = *std::next(myMap.begin(), N);
This has linear complexity, which is not ideal if you plan to frequently access this way in large maps.
An alternative is to use an ordered container that supports random access. For example, boost::container::flat_map provides a member function nth which allows you exactly what you are looking for.
std::map<string,int>::iterator it = mymap.begin() + index;
I am attempting to write an A* search in c++ for the first time but i have written them in Java before.
I am having trouble checking if something is already in the openList or not. The OpenList is a priority_queue of Node's, but i understanding you cannot simply iterate through a priority queue.
My idea is that, i pass the openList to a function, which will copy the elements into a temp vector and then i can iterate this temp vector. This is obviously not good for extremely fast and efficient run times, but i can't think of another way around it.
The closed list is very simple as you can see just iterate through the vector.
These are the two lists:
priority_queue<Node, vector<Node>, NodeCompare> openList;
vector<Node> closedList;
code:
bool checkInClosedList(std::vector<Node>& v,int x, int y){
for (std::vector<Node>::iterator iter = v.begin(); iter != v.end(); ++iter) {
if(iter->getX() == x && iter->getY() == y){
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
How can i do the above, but for a priority_queue <Node, vector<Node>, NodeCompare>?
The priority queue itself works fine i have tested it, but my A* gets stuck in infinite loops because it keeps checking Nodes it has already checked!
Cheers,
Chris.
The underlying data container is a protected member of
std::priority_queue, so you can access it in a derived class.
If you want to add pre- or post-conditions or invariants, this
is the correct solution; you derive your own class which
enforces the invariants.
You could use a std::list and call unique() on it. In addition a std::list lets you sort based on a predicate which would allow you to emulate any sorting that the priority_queue is doing.
Alternately a std::map enforces unique keys and will remove duplicates.
I need a list of elements that are always sorted. the operation involved is quite simple, for example, if the list is sorted from high to low, i only need three operations in some loop task:
while true do {
list.sort() //sort the list that has hundreds of elements
val = list[0] //get the first/maximum value in the list
list.pop_front() //remove the first/maximum element
...//do some work here
list.push_back(new_elem)//insert a new element
list.sort()
}
however, since I only add one elem at a time, and I have speed concern, I don't want the sorting go through all the elements, e.g., using bubble sorting. So I just wonder if there is a function to insert the element in order? or whether the list::sort() function is smarter enough to use some kind of quick sort when only one element is added/modified?
Or maybe should I use deque for better speed performance if above are all the operations needed?
thanks alot!
As mentioned in the comments, if you aren't locked into std::list then you should try std::set or std::multiset.
The std::list::insert method takes an iterator which specifies where to add the new item. You can use std::lower_bound to find the correct insertion point; it's not optimal without random access iterators but it still only does O(log n) comparisons.
P.S. don't use variable names that collide with built-in classes like list.
lst.sort(std::greater<T>()); //sort the list that has hundreds of elements
while true do {
val = lst.front(); //get the first/maximum value in the list
lst.pop_front(); //remove the first/maximum element
...//do some work here
std::list<T>::iterator it = std::lower_bound(lst.begin(), lst.end(), std::greater<T>());
lst.insert(it, new_elem); //insert a new element
// lst is already sorted
}
Does the C++ standard library have an "ordered set" datastructure? By ordered set, I mean something that is exactly the same as the ordinary std::set but that remembers the order in which you added the items to it.
If not, what is the best way to simulate one? I know you could do something like have a set of pairs with each pair storing the number it was added in and the actual value, but I dont want to jump through hoops if there is a simpler solution.
No single, homogeneous data structure will have this property, since it is either sequential (i.e. elements are arranged in insertion order) or associative (elements are arranged in some order depending on value).
The best, clean approach would perhaps be something like Boost.MultiIndex, which allows you to add multiple indexes, or "views", on a container, so you can have a sequential and an ordered index.
Instead of making a std::set of whatever type you're using, why not pass it a std::pair of the object and an index that gets incremented at each insertion?
No, it does not.
Such a container presumably would need two different iterators, one to iterate in the order defined by the order of adding, and another to iterate in the usual set order. There's nothing of that kind in the standard libraries.
One option to simulate it is to have a set of some type that contains an intrusive linked list node in addition to the actual data you care about. After adding an element to the set, append it to the linked list. Before removing an element from the set, remove it from the linked list. This is guaranteed to be OK, since pointers to set elements aren't invalidated by any operation other than removing that element.
I thought the answer is fairly simple, combine set with another iteratable structure (say, queue). If you like to iterate the set in the order that the element been inserted, push the elements in queue first, do your work on the front element, then pop out, put into set.
[Disclaimer: I have given a similar answer to this question already]
If you can use Boost, a very straightforward solution is to use the header-only library Boost.Bimap (bidirectional maps).
Consider the following sample program that will display some dummy entries in insertion order (try out here):
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <type_traits>
#include <boost/bimap.hpp>
using namespace std::string_literals;
template <typename T>
void insertByOrder(boost::bimap<T, size_t>& mymap, const T& element) {
using pos = typename std::remove_reference<decltype(mymap)>::type::value_type;
// We use size() as index, therefore indexing the elements with 0, 1, ...
mymap.insert(pos(element, mymap.size()));
}
int main() {
boost::bimap<std::string, size_t> mymap;
insertByOrder(mymap, "stack"s);
insertByOrder(mymap, "overflow"s);
// Iterate over right map view (integers) in sorted order
for (const auto& rit : mymap.right) {
std::cout << rit.first << " -> " << rit.second << std::endl;
}
}
The funky type alias in insertByOrder() is needed to insert elements into a boost::bimap in the following line (see referenced documentation).
Yes, it's called a vector or list (or array). Just appends to the vector to add element to the set.
If I have a structure like
std::map<string, int> myMap;
myMap["banana"] = 1;
myMap["apple"] = 1;
myMap["orange"] = 1;
How can I access myMap[0]?
I know that the map sorts internally and I'm fine with this, I want to get a value in the map by index. I've tried myMap[0] but I get the error:
Error 1 error C2679: binary '[' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'int' (or there is no acceptable conversion)
I realise I could do something like this:
string getKeyAtIndex (int index){
map<string, int>::const_iterator end = myMap.end();
int counter = 0;
for (map<string, int>::const_iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != end; ++it) {
counter++;
if (counter == index)
return it->first;
}
}
But surely this is hugely inefficient? Is there a better way?
Your map is not supposed to be accessed that way, it's indexed by keys not by positions. A map iterator is bidirectional, just like a list, so the function you are using is no more inefficient than accessing a list by position. If you want random access by position then use a vector or a deque.
Your function could be written with help from std::advance(iter, index) starting from begin():
auto it = myMap.begin();
std::advance(it, index);
return it->first;
There may be an implementation specific (non-portable) method to achieve your goal, but not one that is portable.
In general, the std::map is implemented as a type of binary tree, usually sorted by key. The definition of the first element differs depending on the ordering. Also, in your definition, is element[0] the node at the top of the tree or the left-most leaf node?
Many binary trees are implemented as linked lists. Most linked lists cannot be directly accessed like an array, because to find element 5, you have to follow the links. This is by definition.
You can resolve your issue by using both a std::vector and a std::map:
Allocate the object from dynamic memory.
Store the pointer, along with the key, into the std::map.
Store the pointer in the std::vector at the position you want it
at.
The std::map will allow an efficient method to access the object by key.
The std::vector will allow an efficient method to access the object by index.
Storing pointers allows for only one instance of the object instead of having to maintain multiple copies.
Well, actually you can't. The way you found is very unefficient, it have a computational complexity of O(n) (n operations worst case, where n is the number of elements in a map).
Accessing an item in a vector or in an array have complexity O(1) by comparison (constant computational complexity, a single operation).
Consider that map is internally implemented as a red black tree (or avl tree, it depends on the implementation) and every insert, delete and lookup operation are O(log n) worst case (it requires logarithm in base 2 operations to find an element in the tree), that is quite good.
A way you can deal with is to use a custom class that have inside both a vector and a map.
Insertion at the end of the class will be averaged O(1), lookup by name will be O(log n), lookup by index will be O(1) but in this case, removal operation will be O(n).
Previous answer (see comment): How about just myMap.begin();
You could implement a random-access map by using a vector backing-store, which is essentially a vector of pairs. You of course lose all the benefits of the standard library map at that point.
you can use some other map like containers .
keep a size fields can make binary search tree easy to random access .
here is my implementation ...
std style , random access iterator ...
size balanced tree ...
https://github.com/mm304321141/zzz_lib/blob/master/sbtree.h
and B+tree ...
https://github.com/mm304321141/zzz_lib/blob/master/bpptree.h
std::map is an ordered container, but it's iterators don't support random access, but rather bidirectional access. Therefore, you can only access the nth element by navigating all its prior elements. A shorter alternative to your example is using the standard iterator library:
std::pair<const std::string, int> &nth_element = *std::next(myMap.begin(), N);
This has linear complexity, which is not ideal if you plan to frequently access this way in large maps.
An alternative is to use an ordered container that supports random access. For example, boost::container::flat_map provides a member function nth which allows you exactly what you are looking for.
std::map<string,int>::iterator it = mymap.begin() + index;