Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Is there any advantage of using map over unordered_map in case of trivial keys?

A recent talk about unordered_map in C++ made me realize that I should use unordered_map for most cases where I used map before, because of the efficiency of lookup ( amortized O(1) vs. O(log n) ). Most times I use a map, I use either int or std::string as the key type; hence, I've got no problems with the definition of the hash function. The more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that I can't find any reason of using a std::map over a std::unordered_map in the case of keys with simple types -- I took a look at the interfaces, and didn't find any significant differences that would impact my code.

Hence the question: is there any real reason to use std::map over std::unordered_map in the case of simple types like int and std::string?

I'm asking from a strictly programming point of view -- I know that it's not fully considered standard, and that it may pose problems with porting.

Also, I expect that one of the correct answers might be "it's more efficient for smaller sets of data" because of a smaller overhead (is that true?) -- hence I'd like to restrict the question to cases where the amount of keys is non-trivial (>1 024).

Edit: duh, I forgot the obvious (thanks GMan!) -- yes, maps are ordered of course -- I know that, and am looking for other reasons.

like image 826
Kornel Kisielewicz Avatar asked Feb 04 '10 02:02

Kornel Kisielewicz


People also ask

Should I use unordered_map or map?

map is used to store elements as key,value pairs in sorted order. unordered_map is used to store elements as key,value pairs in non-sorted order.

Which is more efficient map or unordered_map?

Insertion of spread keys in std::map tends to outperform std::unordered_map when map size is under 10000 elements. Insertion of dense keys in std::map doesn't present performance difference with std::unordered_map under 1000 elements. In all other situations std::unordered_map tends to perform faster.

What is the difference between unordered map and map?

unordered_map vs map : map (like set) is an ordered sequence of unique keys whereas in unordered_map key can be stored in any order, so unordered. The map is implemented as a balanced tree structure that is why it is possible to maintain order between the elements (by specific tree traversal).

Does unordered map allow duplicate keys?

Because unordered_map containers do not allow for duplicate keys, this means that the function actually returns 1 if an element with that key exists in the container, and zero otherwise.


1 Answers

Don't forget that map keeps its elements ordered. If you can't give that up, obviously you can't use unordered_map.

Something else to keep in mind is that unordered_map generally uses more memory. map just has a few house-keeping pointers, and memory for each object. Contrarily, unordered_map has a big array (these can get quite big in some implementations), and then additional memory for each object. If you need to be memory-aware, map should prove better, because it lacks the large array.

So, if you need pure lookup-retrieval, I'd say unordered_map is the way to go. But there are always trade-offs, and if you can't afford them, then you can't use it.

Just from personal experience, I found an enormous improvement in performance (measured, of course) when using unordered_map instead of map in a main entity look-up table.

On the other hand, I found it was much slower at repeatedly inserting and removing elements. It's great for a relatively static collection of elements, but if you're doing tons of insertions and deletions the hashing + bucketing seems to add up. (Note, this was over many iterations.)

like image 112
GManNickG Avatar answered Sep 21 '22 13:09

GManNickG