Related
I want to erase by value from a vector of shared ptr of string (i.e vector<shared_ptr<string>>) . Is there any efficient way of doing this instead of iterating the complete vector and then erasing from the iterator positions.
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
vector<shared_ptr<string>> v;
v.push_back(make_shared<string>("aaa"));
int j = 0,ind;
for(auto i : v) {
if((*i)=="aaa"){
ind = j;
}
j++;
}
v.erase(v.begin()+ind);
}
Also I dont want to use memory for a map ( value vs address).
Try like that (Erase-Remove Idiom):
string s = "aaa";
auto cmp = [s](const shared_ptr<string> &p) { return s == *p; };
v.erase(std::remove_if(v.begin(), v.end(), cmp), v.end());
There is no better way then O(N) - you have to find the object in a vector, and you have to iterate the vector once to find it. Does not really matter if it is a pointer or any object.
The only way to do better is to use a different data structure, which provides O(1) finding/removal. A set is the first thing that comes to mind, but that would indicate your pointers are unique. A second option would be a map, such that multiple pointers pointing to the same value exist at the same hash key.
If you do not want to use a different structure, then you are out of luck. You could have an additional structure hashing the pointers, if you want to retain the vector but also have O(1) access.
For example if you do use a set, and define a proper key - hasher or key_equal. probably hasher is enough defined as the hash for *elementInSet, so each pointer must point to a distinct string for example:
struct myPtrHash {
size_t operator()(const std::shared_ptr<std::string>& p) const {
//Maybe we want to add checks/throw a more meaningful error if p is invalid?
return std::hash<std::string>()(*p);
}
};
such that your set is:
std::unordered_set<std::shared_ptr<std::string>,myPtrHash > pointerSet;
Then erasing would be O(1) simply as:
std::shared_ptr<std::string> toErase = make_shared("aaa");
pointerSet.erase(toErase)
That said, if you must use a vector a more idomatic way to do this is to use remove_if instead of iterating yourself - this will not improve time complexity though, just better practice.
Don't include bits/stdc++.h, and since you're iterating through the hole vector, you should be using std::for_each with a lambda.
I have a map inserting multiple values with the same key of C string type.
I would expect to have a single entry with the specified key.
However the map seems to take it's address into consideration when uniquely identifying a key.
#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <unordered_map>
typedef char const* const MyKey;
/// #brief Hash function for StatementMap keys
///
/// Delegates to std::hash<std::string>.
struct MyMapHash {
public:
size_t operator()(MyKey& key) const {
return std::hash<std::string>{}(std::string(key));
}
};
typedef std::unordered_map<MyKey, int, MyMapHash> MyMap;
int main()
{
// Build std::strings to prevent optimizations on the addresses of
// underlying C strings.
std::string key1_s = "same";
std::string key2_s = "same";
MyKey key1 = key1_s.c_str();
MyKey key2 = key2_s.c_str();
// Make sure addresses are different.
assert(key1 != key2);
// Make sure hashes are identical.
assert(MyMapHash{}(key1) == MyMapHash{}(key2));
// Insert two values with the same key.
MyMap map;
map.insert({key1, 1});
map.insert({key2, 2});
// Make sure we find them in the map.
auto it1 = map.find(key1);
auto it2 = map.find(key2);
assert(it1 != map.end());
assert(it2 != map.end());
// Get values.
int value1 = it1->second;
int value2 = it2->second;
// The first one of any of these asserts fails. Why is there not only one
// entry in the map?
assert(value1 == value2);
assert(map.size() == 1u);
}
A print in the debugger shows that map contains two elements just after inserting them.
(gdb) p map
$4 = std::unordered_map with 2 elements = {
[0x7fffffffda20 "same"] = 2,
[0x7fffffffda00 "same"] = 1
}
Why does this happen if the hash function which delegates to std::hash<std::string> only takes it's value into account (this is asserted in the code)?
Moreover, if this is the intended behaviour, how can I use a map with C string as key, but with a 1:1 key-value mapping?
The reason is that hash maps (like std::unordered_map) do not only rely on the hash function for determining if two keys are equal. The hash function is the first comparison layer, after that the elements are always also compared by value. The reason is that even with good hash functions you might have collisions where two different keys yield the same hash value - but you still need to be able to save both entries in the hashmap. There are various strategies to handle that, you can find more information on looking for collision resolution for hash maps.
In your examples both entries have the same hash value but different values. The values are just compared by the standard comparison function, which compares the char* pointers, which are different. Therefore the value comparison fails and you get two entries in the map. To solve your issue you also need to define a custom equality function for your hash map, which can be done by specifiying the fourth template parameter KeyEqual for std::unordered_map.
This fails because the unordered_map does not and cannot solely rely on the hash function for the key to differentiate keys, but it must also compare keys with the same hash for equality. And comparing two char pointers compares the address pointed to.
If you want to change the comparison, pass a KeyEqual parameter to the map in addition to the hash.
struct MyKeyEqual
{
bool operator()(MyKey const &lhs, MyKey const &rhs) const
{
return std::strcmp(lhs, rhs) == 0;
}
};
unordered_map needs to be able to perform two operations on the key - checking equality, and obtaining hash code. Naturally, two unequal keys are allowed to have different hash codes. When this happens, unordered map applies hash collision resolution strategy to treat these unequal keys as distinct.
That is precisely what happens when you supply a character pointer for the key, and provide an implementation of hash to it: the default equality comparison for pointers kicks in, so two different pointers produce two different keys, even though the content of the corresponding C strings is the same.
You can fix it by providing a custom implementation of KeyEqual template parameter to perform actual comparison of C strings, for example, by calling strcmp:
return !strcmp(lhsKey, rhsKey);
You didn't define a map of keys but a map of pointers to a key.
typedef char const* const MyKey;
The compiler can optimize the two instances of "name" and use only one instance in the const data segment, but that can happen or not. A.k.a. undefined behavior.
Your map should contain the key itself. Make the key a std::string or similar.
I currently have a std::map<std::string,int> that stores an integer value to a unique string identifier, and I do look up with the string. It does mostly what I want, except that it does not keep track of the insertion order. So when I iterate the map to print out the values, they are sorted according to the string; but I want them to be sorted according to the order of (first) insertion.
I thought about using a vector<pair<string,int>> instead, but I need to look up the string and increment the integer values about 10,000,000 times, so I don't know whether a std::vector will be significantly slower.
Is there a way to use std::map or is there another std container that better suits my need?
I'm on GCC 3.4, and I have probably no more than 50 pairs of values in my std::map.
If you have only 50 values in std::map you could copy them to std::vector before printing out and sort via std::sort using appropriate functor.
Or you could use boost::multi_index. It allows to use several indexes.
In your case it could look like the following:
struct value_t {
string s;
int i;
};
struct string_tag {};
typedef multi_index_container<
value_t,
indexed_by<
random_access<>, // this index represents insertion order
hashed_unique< tag<string_tag>, member<value_t, string, &value_t::s> >
>
> values_t;
You might combine a std::vector with a std::tr1::unordered_map (a hash table). Here's a link to Boost's documentation for unordered_map. You can use the vector to keep track of the insertion order and the hash table to do the frequent lookups. If you're doing hundreds of thousands of lookups, the difference between O(log n) lookup for std::map and O(1) for a hash table might be significant.
std::vector<std::string> insertOrder;
std::tr1::unordered_map<std::string, long> myTable;
// Initialize the hash table and record insert order.
myTable["foo"] = 0;
insertOrder.push_back("foo");
myTable["bar"] = 0;
insertOrder.push_back("bar");
myTable["baz"] = 0;
insertOrder.push_back("baz");
/* Increment things in myTable 100000 times */
// Print the final results.
for (int i = 0; i < insertOrder.size(); ++i)
{
const std::string &s = insertOrder[i];
std::cout << s << ' ' << myTable[s] << '\n';
}
Tessil has a very nice implementaion of ordered map (and set) which is MIT license. You can find it here: ordered-map
Map example
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <cstdlib>
#include "ordered_map.h"
int main() {
tsl::ordered_map<char, int> map = {{'d', 1}, {'a', 2}, {'g', 3}};
map.insert({'b', 4});
map['h'] = 5;
map['e'] = 6;
map.erase('a');
// {d, 1} {g, 3} {b, 4} {h, 5} {e, 6}
for(const auto& key_value : map) {
std::cout << "{" << key_value.first << ", " << key_value.second << "}" << std::endl;
}
map.unordered_erase('b');
// Break order: {d, 1} {g, 3} {e, 6} {h, 5}
for(const auto& key_value : map) {
std::cout << "{" << key_value.first << ", " << key_value.second << "}" << std::endl;
}
}
Keep a parallel list<string> insertionOrder.
When it is time to print, iterate on the list and do lookups into the map.
each element in insertionOrder // walks in insertionOrder..
print map[ element ].second // but lookup is in map
If you need both lookup strategies, you will end up with two containers. You may use a vector with your actual values (ints), and put a map< string, vector< T >::difference_type> next to it, returning the index into the vector.
To complete all that, you may encapsulate both in one class.
But I believe boost has a container with multiple indices.
What you want (without resorting to Boost) is what I call an "ordered hash", which is essentially a mashup of a hash and a linked list with string or integer keys (or both at the same time). An ordered hash maintains the order of the elements during iteration with the absolute performance of a hash.
I've been putting together a relatively new C++ snippet library that fills in what I view as holes in the C++ language for C++ library developers. Go here:
https://github.com/cubiclesoft/cross-platform-cpp
Grab:
templates/detachable_ordered_hash.cpp
templates/detachable_ordered_hash.h
templates/detachable_ordered_hash_util.h
If user-controlled data will be placed into the hash, you might also want:
security/security_csprng.cpp
security/security_csprng.h
Invoke it:
#include "templates/detachable_ordered_hash.h"
...
// The 47 is the nearest prime to a power of two
// that is close to your data size.
//
// If your brain hurts, just use the lookup table
// in 'detachable_ordered_hash.cpp'.
//
// If you don't care about some minimal memory thrashing,
// just use a value of 3. It'll auto-resize itself.
int y;
CubicleSoft::OrderedHash<int> TempHash(47);
// If you need a secure hash (many hashes are vulnerable
// to DoS attacks), pass in two randomly selected 64-bit
// integer keys. Construct with CSPRNG.
// CubicleSoft::OrderedHash<int> TempHash(47, Key1, Key2);
CubicleSoft::OrderedHashNode<int> *Node;
...
// Push() for string keys takes a pointer to the string,
// its length, and the value to store. The new node is
// pushed onto the end of the linked list and wherever it
// goes in the hash.
y = 80;
TempHash.Push("key1", 5, y++);
TempHash.Push("key22", 6, y++);
TempHash.Push("key3", 5, y++);
// Adding an integer key into the same hash just for kicks.
TempHash.Push(12345, y++);
...
// Finding a node and modifying its value.
Node = TempHash.Find("key1", 5);
Node->Value = y++;
...
Node = TempHash.FirstList();
while (Node != NULL)
{
if (Node->GetStrKey()) printf("%s => %d\n", Node->GetStrKey(), Node->Value);
else printf("%d => %d\n", (int)Node->GetIntKey(), Node->Value);
Node = Node->NextList();
}
I ran into this SO thread during my research phase to see if anything like OrderedHash already existed without requiring me to drop in a massive library. I was disappointed. So I wrote my own. And now I've shared it.
Here is solution that requires only standard template library without using boost's multiindex:
You could use std::map<std::string,int>; and vector <data>; where in map you store the index of the location of data in vector and vector stores data in insertion order. Here access to data has O(log n) complexity. displaying data in insertion order has O(n) complexity. insertion of data has O(log n) complexity.
For Example:
#include<iostream>
#include<map>
#include<vector>
struct data{
int value;
std::string s;
}
typedef std::map<std::string,int> MapIndex;//this map stores the index of data stored
//in VectorData mapped to a string
typedef std::vector<data> VectorData;//stores the data in insertion order
void display_data_according_insertion_order(VectorData vectorData){
for(std::vector<data>::iterator it=vectorData.begin();it!=vectorData.end();it++){
std::cout<<it->value<<it->s<<std::endl;
}
}
int lookup_string(std::string s,MapIndex mapIndex){
std::MapIndex::iterator pt=mapIndex.find(s)
if (pt!=mapIndex.end())return it->second;
else return -1;//it signifies that key does not exist in map
}
int insert_value(data d,mapIndex,vectorData){
if(mapIndex.find(d.s)==mapIndex.end()){
mapIndex.insert(std::make_pair(d.s,vectorData.size()));//as the data is to be
//inserted at back
//therefore index is
//size of vector before
//insertion
vectorData.push_back(d);
return 1;
}
else return 0;//it signifies that insertion of data is failed due to the presence
//string in the map and map stores unique keys
}
You cannot do that with a map, but you could use two separate structures - the map and the vector and keep them synchronized - that is when you delete from the map, find and delete the element from the vector. Or you could create a map<string, pair<int,int>> - and in your pair store the size() of the map upon insertion to record position, along with the value of the int, and then when you print, use the position member to sort.
One thing you need to consider is the small number of data elements you are using. It is possible that it will be faster to use just the vector. There is some overhead in the map that can cause it to be more expensive to do lookups in small data sets than the simpler vector. So, if you know that you will always be using around the same number of elements, do some benchmarking and see if the performance of the map and vector is what you really think it is. You may find the lookup in a vector with only 50 elements is near the same as the map.
Another way to implement this is with a map instead of a vector. I will show you this approach and discuss the differences:
Just create a class that has two maps behind the scenes.
#include <map>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class SpecialMap {
// usual stuff...
private:
int counter_;
map<int, string> insertion_order_;
map<string, int> data_;
};
You can then expose an iterator to iterator over data_ in the proper order. The way you do that is iterate through insertion_order_, and for each element you get from that iteration, do a lookup in the data_ with the value from insertion_order_
You can use the more efficient hash_map for insertion_order since you don't care about directly iterating through insertion_order_.
To do inserts, you can have a method like this:
void SpecialMap::Insert(const string& key, int value) {
// This may be an over simplification... You ought to check
// if you are overwriting a value in data_ so that you can update
// insertion_order_ accordingly
insertion_order_[counter_++] = key;
data_[key] = value;
}
There are a lot of ways you can make the design better and worry about performance, but this is a good skeleton to get you started on implementing this functionality on your own. You can make it templated, and you might actually store pairs as values in data_ so that you can easily reference the entry in insertion_order_. But I leave these design issues as an exercise :-).
Update: I suppose I should say something about efficiency of using map vs. vector for insertion_order_
lookups directly into data, in both cases are O(1)
inserts in the vector approach are O(1), inserts in the map approach are O(logn)
deletes in the vector approach are O(n) because you have to scan for the item to remove. With the map approach they are O(logn).
Maybe if you are not going to use deletes as much, you should use the vector approach. The map approach would be better if you were supporting a different ordering (like priority) instead of insertion order.
This is somewhat related to Faisals answer. You can just create a wrapper class around a map and vector and easily keep them synchronized. Proper encapsulation will let you control the access method and hence which container to use... the vector or the map. This avoids using Boost or anything like that.
// Should be like this man!
// This maintains the complexity of insertion is O(logN) and deletion is also O(logN).
class SpecialMap {
private:
int counter_;
map<int, string> insertion_order_;
map<string, int> insertion_order_reverse_look_up; // <- for fast delete
map<string, Data> data_;
};
There is no need to use a separate std::vector or any other container for keeping track of the insertion order. You can do what you want as shown below.
If you want to keep the insertion order then you can use the following program(version 1):
Version 1: For counting unique strings using std::map<std::string,int> in insertion order
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
#include <sstream>
int findExactMatchIndex(const std::string &totalString, const std::string &toBeSearched)
{
std::istringstream ss(totalString);
std::string word;
std::size_t index = 0;
while(ss >> word)
{
if(word == toBeSearched)
{
return index;
}
++index;
}
return -1;//return -1 when the string to be searched is not inside the inputString
}
int main() {
std::string inputString = "this is a string containing my name again and again and again ", word;
//this map maps the std::string to their respective count
std::map<std::string, int> wordCount;
std::istringstream ss(inputString);
while(ss >> word)
{
//std::cout<<"word:"<<word<<std::endl;
wordCount[word]++;
}
std::cout<<"Total unique words are: "<<wordCount.size()<<std::endl;
std::size_t i = 0;
std::istringstream gothroughStream(inputString);
//just go through the inputString(stream) instead of map
while( gothroughStream >> word)
{
int index = findExactMatchIndex(inputString, word);
if(index != -1 && (index == i)){
std::cout << word <<"-" << wordCount.at(word)<<std::endl;
}
++i;
}
return 0;
}
The output of the above program is as follows:
Total unique words are: 9
this-1
is-1
a-1
string-1
containing-1
my-1
name-1
again-3
and-2
Note that in the above program, if you have a comma or any other delimiter then it is counted as a separate word. So for example lets say you have the string this is, my name is then the string is, has count of 1 and the string is has count of 1. That is is, and is are different. This is because the computer doesn't know our definition of a word.
Note
The above program is a modification of my answer to How do i make the char in an array output in order in this nested for loop? which is given as version 2 below:
Version 2: For counting unique characters using std::map<char, int> in insertion order
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
int main() {
std::string inputString;
std::cout<<"Enter a string: ";
std::getline(std::cin,inputString);
//this map maps the char to their respective count
std::map<char, int> charCount;
for(char &c: inputString)
{
charCount[c]++;
}
std::size_t i = 0;
//just go through the inputString instead of map
for(char &c: inputString)
{
std::size_t index = inputString.find(c);
if(index != inputString.npos && (index == i)){
std::cout << c <<"-" << charCount.at(c)<<std::endl;
}
++i;
}
return 0;
}
In both cases/versions there is no need to use a separate std::vector or any other container to keep track of the insertion order.
Use boost::multi_index with map and list indices.
A map of pair (str,int) and static int that increments on insert calls indexes pairs of data. Put in a struct that can return the static int val with an index () member perhaps?
So I am placing objects in a vector. I want to drop them in order as they are added. the basics of the object are
class myObj {
private:
string firstName;
string lastName;
public:
string getFirst;
string getLast;
}
I also have a vector of these objects
vector< myObj > myVect;
vector< myObj >::iterator myVectit = myVect.begin();
when I add a new object to the vector I want to find where it should be placed before inserting it. Can I search a vector by an object value and how? This is my first attempt
void addanObj (myObj & objtoAdd){
int lowwerB = lower_bound(
myVect.begin().getLast(), myVect.end().getLast(), objtoAdd.getLast()
);
int upperB = upper_bound(
myVect.begin().getLast(), myVect.end().getLast(), objtoAdd.getLast()
);
from there i plan to use lowwerB and upper B to determine where to insert the entry. what do I need to do to get this to work or what is a better method of tackling this challenge?
----Follow up----
the error I get when I attempt to compile
error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'std::string' to 'int'
No user-defined-conversion operator available that can perform this conversion,
or the operator cannot be called
The compiler highlights both lower_bound and upper_bound. I would guess it is referring to where I am putting
objtoAdd.getLast()
-----More Follow up-----------------
THis is close to compiling but not quite. What should I expect to get from lower_bound and upper_bound? It doesnt match the iterator i defined and im not sure what I should expect.
void addMyObj(myObj myObjtoadd)
vector< myObj>::iterator tempLB;
vector< myObj>::iterator tempUB;
myVectit= theDex.begin();
tempLB = lower_bound(
myVect.begin()->getLast(), myVect.end()->getLast(), myObjtoadd.getLast()
);
tempUB = upper_bound(
myVect.begin()->getLast(), myVect.end()->getLast(), myObjtoadd.getLast()
);
Your calls to std::lower_bound and std::upper_bound are incorrect. The first two parameters must be iterators that define a range of elements to search and the returned values are also iterators.
Since these algorithms compare the container elements to the third parameter value you'll also need to provide correct operator< functions that compare an object's lastName and a std::string. I've added two different compare functions since std::lower_bound and std::upper_bound pass the parameters in opposite order.
I think I have the machinery correct in this code, it should be close enough for you to get the idea.
class myObj {
private:
std::string firstName;
std::string lastName;
public:
std::string getFirst() const { return firstName; }
std::string getLast() const { return lastName; }
};
bool operator<(const myObj &obj, const std::string &value) // used by lower_bound()
{
return obj.getLast() < value;
}
bool operator<(const std::string &value, const myObj &obj) // used by upper_bound()
{
return value < obj.getLast();
}
int main()
{
std::vector<myObj> myVect;
std::vector<myObj>::iterator tempLB, tempUB;
myObj objtoAdd;
tempLB = std::lower_bound(myVect.begin(), myVect.end(), objtoAdd.getLast());
tempUB = std::upper_bound(myVect.begin(), myVect.end(), objtoAdd.getLast());
}
So this is definitely not the best way to go. Here's why:
Vector Size
A default vector starts out with 0 elements, but capacity to hold some number; say 100. After you add the 101st element, it has to completely recreate the vector, copy over all the data, and then delete the old memory. This copying can become expensive, if done enough.
Inserting into a vector
This is going to be even more of a problem. Because a vector is just a contiguous block of memory with objects stored in insert order, say you have the below:
[xxxxxxxzzzzzzzz ]
if you want to add 'y', it belongs between x and z, right? this means you need to move all the z's over 1 place. But because you are reusing the same block of memory, you need to do it one at a time.
[xxxxxxxzzzzzzz z ]
[xxxxxxxzzzzzz zz ]
[xxxxxxxzzzzz zzz ]
...
[xxxxxxx zzzzzzzz ]
[xxxxxxxyzzzzzzzz ]
(the spaces are for clarity - previous value isn't explicitly cleared)
As you can see, this is a lot of steps to make room for your 'y', and will be very very slow for large data sets.
A better solution
As others have mentioned, std::set sounds like it's more appropriate for your needs. std::set will automatically order all inserted elements (using a tree data structure for much faster insertion), and allows you to find particular data members by last name also in log(n) time. It does this by using bool myObj::operator(const & _myObj) const to know how to sort the different objects. If you simply define this operator to compare this->lastName < _myObj.lastName, you can simply insert into the set much quicker.
Alternately, if you really really want to use vector: instead of sorting it as you go, just add all the items to the vector, and then perform std::sort to sort them after all the inserts are done. This will also complete in n log(n) time, but should be considerably faster than the current approach because of the vector insertion problem.
This is my code
map<string,int> persons;
persons["B"] = 123;
persons["A"] = 321;
for(map<string,int>::iterator i = persons.begin();
i!=persons.end();
++i)
{
cout<< (*i).first << ":"<<(*i).second<<endl;
}
Expected output:
B:123
A:321
But output it gives is:
A:321
B:123
I want it to maintain the order in which keys and values were inserted in the map<string,int>.
Is it possible? Or should I use some other STL data structure? Which one?
There is no standard container that does directly what you want. The obvious container to use if you want to maintain insertion order is a vector. If you also need look up by string, use a vector AND a map. The map would in general be of string to vector index, but as your data is already integers you might just want to duplicate it, depending on your use case.
Like Matthieu has said in another answer, the Boost.MultiIndex library seems the right choice for what you want. However, this library can be a little tough to use at the beginning especially if you don't have a lot of experience with C++. Here is how you would use the library to solve the exact problem in the code of your question:
struct person {
std::string name;
int id;
person(std::string const & name, int id)
: name(name), id(id) {
}
};
int main() {
using namespace::boost::multi_index;
using namespace std;
// define a multi_index_container with a list-like index and an ordered index
typedef multi_index_container<
person, // The type of the elements stored
indexed_by< // The indices that our container will support
sequenced<>, // list-like index
ordered_unique<member<person, string,
&person::name> > // map-like index (sorted by name)
>
> person_container;
// Create our container and add some people
person_container persons;
persons.push_back(person("B", 123));
persons.push_back(person("C", 224));
persons.push_back(person("A", 321));
// Typedefs for the sequence index and the ordered index
enum { Seq, Ord };
typedef person_container::nth_index<Seq>::type persons_seq_index;
typedef person_container::nth_index<Ord>::type persons_ord_index;
// Let's test the sequence index
persons_seq_index & seq_index = persons.get<Seq>();
for(persons_seq_index::iterator it = seq_index.begin(),
e = seq_index.end(); it != e; ++it)
cout << it->name << ":"<< it->id << endl;
cout << "\n";
// And now the ordered index
persons_ord_index & ord_index = persons.get<Ord>();
for(persons_ord_index::iterator it = ord_index.begin(),
e = ord_index.end(); it != e; ++it)
cout << it->name << ":"<< it->id << endl;
cout << "\n";
// Thanks to the ordered index we have fast lookup by name:
std::cout << "The id of B is: " << ord_index.find("B")->id << "\n";
}
Which produces the following output:
B:123
C:224
A:321
A:321
B:123
C:224
The id of B is: 123
Map is definitely not right for you:
"Internally, the elements in the map are sorted from lower to higher key value following a specific strict weak ordering criterion set on construction."
Quote taken from here.
Unfortunately there is no unordered associative container in the STL, so either you use a nonassociative one like vector, or write your own :-(
I had the same problem every once in a while and here is my solution: https://github.com/nlohmann/fifo_map. It's a header-only C++11 solution and can be used as drop-in replacement for a std::map.
For your example, it can be used as follows:
#include "fifo_map.hpp"
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using nlohmann::fifo_map;
int main()
{
fifo_map<std::string,int> persons;
persons["B"] = 123;
persons["A"] = 321;
for(fifo_map<std::string,int>::iterator i = persons.begin();
i!=persons.end();
++i)
{
std::cout<< (*i).first << ":"<<(*i).second << std::endl;
}
}
The output is then
B:123
A:321
Besides Neil's recommendation of a combined vector+map if you need both to keep the insertion order and the ability to search by key, you can also consider using boost multi index libraries, that provide for containers addressable in more than one way.
maps and sets are meant to impose a strict weak ordering upon the data. Strick weak ordering maintains that no entries are equavalent (different to being equal).
You need to provide a functor that the map/set may use to perform a<b. With this functor the map/set sorts its items (in the STL from GCC it uses a red-black tree). It determines weather two items are equavalent if !a<b && !b<a -- the equavelence test.
The functor looks like follows:
template <class T>
struct less : binary_function<T,T,bool> {
bool operator() (const T& a, const T& b) const {
return a < b;
}
};
If you can provide a function that tells the STL how to order things then the map and set can do what you want. For example
template<typename T>
struct ItemHolder
{
int insertCount;
T item;
};
You can then easily write a functor to order by insertCount. If your implementation uses red-black trees your underlying data will remain balanced -- however you will get a lot of re-balancing since your data will be generated based on incremental ordering (vs. Random) -- and in this case a list with push_back would be better. However you cannot access data by key as fast as you would with a map/set.
If you want to sort by string -- provide the functor to search by string, using the insertCount you could potentiall work backwards. If you want to search by both you can have two maps.
map<insertcount, string> x; // auxhilary key
map<string, item> y; //primary key
I use this strategy often -- however I have never placed it in code that is run often. I'm considering boost::bimap.
Well, there is no STL container which actually does what you wish, but there are possibilities.
1. STL
By default, use a vector. Here it would mean:
struct Entry { std::string name; int it; };
typedef std::vector<Entry> container_type;
If you wish to search by string, you always have the find algorithm at your disposal.
class ByName: std::unary_function<Entry,bool>
{
public:
ByName(const std::string& name): m_name(name) {}
bool operator()(const Entry& entry) const { return entry.name == m_name; }
private:
std::string m_name;
};
// Use like this:
container_type myContainer;
container_type::iterator it =
std::find(myContainer.begin(), myContainer.end(), ByName("A"));
2. Boost.MultiIndex
This seems way overkill, but you can always check it out here.
It allows you to create ONE storage container, accessible via various indexes of various styles, all maintained for you (almost) magically.
Rather than using one container (std::map) to reference a storage container (std::vector) with all the synchro issues it causes... you're better off using Boost.
For preserving all the time complexity constrains you need map + list:
struct Entry
{
string key;
int val;
};
typedef list<Entry> MyList;
typedef MyList::iterator Iter;
typedef map<string, Iter> MyMap;
MyList l;
MyMap m;
int find(string key)
{
Iter it = m[key]; // O(log n)
Entry e = *it;
return e.val;
}
void put(string key, int val)
{
Entry e;
e.key = key;
e.val = val;
Iter it = l.insert(l.end(), e); // O(1)
m[key] = it; // O(log n)
}
void erase(string key)
{
Iter it = m[key]; // O(log n)
l.erase(it); // O(1)
m.erase(key); // O(log n)
}
void printAll()
{
for (Iter it = l.begin(); it != l.end(); it++)
{
cout<< it->key << ":"<< it->val << endl;
}
}
Enjoy
You could use a vector of pairs, it is almost the same as unsorted map container
std::vector<std::pair<T, U> > unsorted_map;
Use a vector. It gives you complete control over ordering.
I also think Map is not the way to go. The keys in a Map form a Set; a single key can occur only once. During an insert in the map the map must search for the key, to ensure it does not exist or to update the value of that key. For this it is important (performance wise) that the keys, and thus the entries, have some kind of ordering. As such a Map with insert ordering would be highly inefficient on inserts and retrieving entries.
Another problem would be if you use the same key twice; should the first or the last entry be preserved, and should it update the insert order or not?
Therefore I suggest you go with Neils suggestion, a vector for insert-time ordering and a Map for key-based searching.
Yes, the map container is not for you.
As you asked, you need the following code instead:
struct myClass {
std::string stringValue;
int intValue;
myClass( const std::string& sVal, const int& iVal ):
stringValue( sVal ),
intValue( iVal) {}
};
std::vector<myClass> persons;
persons.push_back( myClass( "B", 123 ));
persons.push_back( myClass( "A", 321 ));
for(std::vector<myClass>::iterator i = persons.begin();
i!=persons.end();
++i)
{
std::cout << (*i).stringValue << ":" << (*i).intValue << std::endl;
}
Here the output is unsorted as expected.
Map is ordered collection (second parametr in template is a order functor), as set. If you want to pop elements in that sequenses as pushd you should use deque or list or vector.
In order to do what they do and be efficient at it, maps use hash tables and sorting. Therefore, you would use a map if you're willing to give up memory of insertion order to gain the convenience and performance of looking up by key.
If you need the insertion order stored, one way would be to create a new type that pairs the value you're storing with the order you're storing it (you would need to write code to keep track of the order). You would then use a map of string to this new type for storage. When you perform a look up using a key, you can also retrieve the insertion order and then sort your values based on insertion order.
One more thing: If you're using a map, be aware of the fact that testing if persons["C"] exists (after you've only inserted A and B) will actually insert a key value pair into your map.
Instead of map you can use the pair function with a vector!
ex:
vector<::pair<unsigned,string>> myvec;
myvec.push_back(::pair<unsigned,string>(1,"a"));
myvec.push_back(::pair<unsigned,string>(5,"b"));
myvec.push_back(::pair<unsigned,string>(3,"aa"));`
Output:
myvec[0]=(1,"a"); myvec[1]=(5,"b"); myvec[2]=(3,"aa");
or another ex:
vector<::pair<string,unsigned>> myvec2;
myvec2.push_back(::pair<string,unsigned>("aa",1));
myvec2.push_back(::pair<string,unsigned>("a",3));
myvec2.push_back(::pair<string,unsigned>("ab",2));
Output: myvec2[0]=("aa",1); myvec2[1]=("a",3); myvec2[2]=("ab",2);
Hope this can help someone else in the future who was looking for non sorted maps like me!
struct Compare : public binary_function<int,int,bool> {
bool operator() (int a, int b) {return true;}
};
Use this to get all the elements of a map in the reverse order in which you entered (i.e.: the first entered element will be the last and the last entered element will be the first). Not as good as the same order but it might serve your purpose with a little inconvenience.
Use a Map along with a vector of iterators as you insert in Map. (Map iterators are guaranteed not to be invalidated)
In the code below I am using Set
set<string> myset;
vector<set<string>::iterator> vec;
void printNonDuplicates(){
vector<set<string>::iterator>::iterator vecIter;
for(vecIter = vec.begin();vecIter!=vec.end();vecIter++){
cout<<(*vecIter)->c_str()<<endl;
}
}
void insertSet(string str){
pair<set<string>::iterator,bool> ret;
ret = myset.insert(str);
if(ret.second)
vec.push_back(ret.first);
}
If you don't want to use boost::multi_index, I have put a proof of concept class template up for review here:
https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/233157/wrapper-class-template-for-stdmap-stdlist-to-provide-a-sequencedmap-which
using std::map<KT,VT> and std::list<OT*> which uses pointers to maintain the order.
It will take O(n) linear time for the delete because it needs to search the whole list for the right pointer. To avoid that would need another cross reference in the map.
I'd vote for typedef std::vector< std::pair< std::string, int > > UnsortedMap;
Assignment looks a bit different, but your loop remains exactly as it is now.
There is std::unordered_map that you can check out. From first view, it looks like it might solve your problem.