I have an unordered_map of type std::unordered_map<std::string, int64_t> sMap. This contains a number of strings and a 'weight' associated with each of them. I want to find the strings with the N largest weights.
If I wanted to do this using a single thread, I think I could create a priority queue of pairs like this
std::priority_queue<
std::pair<std::string, int64_t>,
std::vector<std::pair<std::string, int64_t>>,
std::function<bool(std::pair<std::string, int64_t>&,
std::pair<std::string, int64_t>&)>> prQ(comparePair);
and just go through the whole unordered_map, inserting elements to prQ while maintaining length N.
I want to achieve the same using multiple threads. I was thinking of assigning each thread to work on a few elements of the unordered_map to create a local priority queue of length N which can be merged into a global one at the end.
The problem I am facing right now is that the iterator which I get from unordered_map::begin() does not work with a + operator. At least that is the error that I am getting :
error: no match for ‘operator+’ (operand types are ‘std::unordered_map<std::basic_string<char>, long int>::iterator {aka std::__detail::_Node_iterator<std::pair<const std::b
asic_string<char>, long int>, false, true>}’ and ‘int’)
Thus, I cannot really specify a range of elements to be worked upon by a particular thread. The [] operator would take a key as expected and not an offset.
Essentially, I can't seem to find a way to have a data parallel loop that would work with only a few elements per thread. How can I solve this problem using multiple threads then?
EDIT : #Brian Vandberg asked me to supply a simplified example of the code that generates the error I was talking about.
std::unordered_map<std::string, int64_t> sMap;
//Initialize sMap values
int start = 0, end = 2;
for(auto i = sMap.begin() + start; sMap.begin() + end; ++i) {
std::cout<<i->first<<"\t"<<i->second<<"\n";
}
First, I'm not sure that I'd go with a priority queue for this problem (either single threaded, or as the part performed by a specific thread). The standard library has nth_element, which you can use to find the nth element in linear time. Following that, finding which elements are larger is also linear time.
You might consider this if speed is the problem, yours if size is a problem (nth_element will effectively force you to create a copy of the data). In this solution you iterate over the map (or part of it), and push_back only the weights into a vector, on which you perform nth_element. In the 2nd stage, loop again over the map, and choose those whose weight is higher.
Suppose you have the loop:
std::size_t j = 0;
for(const auto &e: sMap)
{
if(++j % k != i)
continue;
// Rest of code goes here.
}
Then if you use it for the ith thread out of k, it will partition the elements between the threads. Moreover, while all threads are iterating over the same elements (if only to skip most of them), it's happening in parallel.
Each thread can generate its candidates for the largest m elements, then choose the largest m elements from the km candidates using the method above (with the nth_element) or any other method.
It's interesting to ask what size of sMap will generate any speedup in practice.
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!
I want to check if two std::priority_queue (lets call it PQ)(which has vector as underlying containder) are equal. What I have in mind is to somehow get access to the underlying vector and then use std::equal. The interface PQ provides has no way of checking the equality. The naive way would be to pop each element from the copies (because I don't want to lose the original PQs) of those two PQs and check one by one but the size of my PQ will often be very large in my current (time sensitive) application so it is not favourable.
EDIT
It has been declared like this:
typedef std::priority_queue<std::pair<int,int>, std::vector<std::pair<int,int> >, greater_than> PRIORITY_Q;
where greater_than is a struct(which has a function and some other data) which handles the comparision.
What I want is:
suppose we have
PRIORITY_Q a;
PRIORITY_Q b;
then we fill in the queues a and b with values.
I want to check if a == b (by overloading ==).
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.