[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       boost
Subject:    Re: [boost] [Container] interest in a flat_unordered_map
From:       Treb Connell <trebconnell () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-09-21 16:32:04
Message-ID: CAPsSo7Of8Bt=srrWEuBGQng8c5okPw34mgC2x-W+9LR_dsH_PA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

>
> I believe, much of the benefit depends on the nature of keys and
> values (e.g. ints vs. strings)? Is there a more detailed description
> of the tests and results, at different container sizes?
>
I'm planning to port this enough to be able to run the Boost.Container perf
tests.  After I do that I'll post numbers from there.  Wanted to get an
initial sense of interest before starting work.


> Can the iterator tradeoff be made a compile time option?
>
> One frequently used operation that generally amounts to iterating
> through elements is clear(). Do I understand correctly that its
> complexity can be O(N) where N>size()? I believe the same applies to
> range erase().
>
> Also, is size() constant time?
>
size() is constant time, which I pay for in memory and a bit of logic to
keep track of that.  clear() is O(N) where N is bucket_count, though no
work is done on buckets with no elements .

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]