What is the difference between std::unordered_map::emplace
and std::unordered_map::insert
in C++?
std::map Internally store elements in a balanced BST. Therefore, elements will be stored in sorted order of keys. std::unordered_map store elements using hash table. Therefore, elements will not be stored in any sorted order.
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.
No. It's called "unordered" for a reason. If you need to maintain an order of insertion, you've chosen an unsuitable data structure.
For the unordered_map + map , it takes 70 ms for unordered_map insertion and 80 ms for map insertion. So the hybrid implementation is 50 ms faster.
unordered_map::insert
copies or moves a key-value pair into the container. It is overloaded to accept reference-to-const or an rvalue reference:
std::pair<iterator,bool> insert(const std::pair<const Key, T>& value); template<class P> std::pair<iterator,bool> insert(P&& value);
unordered_map::emplace
allows you to avoid unnecessary copies or moves by constructing the element in place. It uses perfect forwarding and a variadic template to forward arguments to the constructor of the key-value pair:
template<class... Args> std::pair<iterator,bool> emplace(Args&&... args);
But there is a great deal of overlap between the two functions. emplace
can be used to forward to the copy/move constructor of the key-value pair which allows it to be used just as insert
would. This means that use of emplace
doesn't guarantee you will avoid copies or moves. Also the version of insert
that takes an rvalue-reference is actually templated and accepts any type P
such that the key-value pair is constructible from P
.
Scott Meyers says:
In principle, emplacement functions should sometimes be more efficient than their insertion counterparts, and they should never be less efficient.
( Edit: Howard Hinnant ran some experiments that showed sometimes insert
is faster than emplace
)
If you definitely do want to copy/move into the container it might be wise to use insert
because you are more likely to get a compilation error if you pass incorrect arguments. You need to be more careful you are passing the correct arguments to the emplacement functions.
Most implementations of unordered_map::emplace
will cause memory to be dynamically allocated for the new pair even if the map contains an item with that key already and the emplace
will fail. This means that if there is a good chance that an emplace
will fail you may get better performance using insert to avoid unneccessary dynamic memory allocations.
Small example:
#include <unordered_map> #include <iostream> int main() { auto employee1 = std::pair<int, std::string>{1, "John Smith"}; auto employees = std::unordered_map<int, std::string>{}; employees.insert(employee1); // copy insertion employees.insert(std::make_pair(2, "Mary Jones")); // move insertion employees.emplace(3, "James Brown"); // construct in-place for (const auto& employee : employees) std::cout << employee.first << ": " << employee.second << "\n"; }
Edit2: On request. It is also possible to use unordered_map::emplace
with a key or value that takes more than one constructor parameter. Using the std::pair
piecewise constructor you can still avoid unnecessary copies or moves.
#include <unordered_map> #include <iostream> struct Employee { std::string firstname; std::string lastname; Employee(const std::string& firstname, const std::string& lastname) : firstname(firstname), lastname(lastname){} }; int main() { auto employees = std::unordered_map<int, Employee>{}; auto employee1 = std::pair<int, Employee>{1, Employee{"John", "Smith"}}; employees.insert(employee1); // copy insertion employees.insert(std::make_pair(2, Employee{"Mary", "Jones"})); // move insertion employees.emplace(3, Employee("Sam", "Thomas")); // emplace with pre-constructed Employee employees.emplace(std::piecewise_construct, std::forward_as_tuple(4), std::forward_as_tuple("James", "Brown")); // construct in-place }
The difference between emplace()
and insert()
has already been well explained in Chris Drew's answer. However, for the sake of completeness I'd like to add that since C++17 std::unordered_map
provides two new insertion methods: try_emplace()
and insert_or_assign()
. Let me summarize these methods briefly:
try_emplace()
is an "improved" version of emplace()
. In contrast to emplace()
, try_emplace()
doesn't modify its arguments (due to move operations) if insertion fails due to a key already existing in the unordered_map
.insert_or_assign()
is an "improved" version of operator[]
. In contrast to operator[]
, insert_or_assign()
doesn't require the value type of the unordered_map
to be default constructible.I have written a more detailed answer on the above mentioned new insertion methods for std::map
here. That answer also applies to std::unordered_map
.
Simple example code on Coliru
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With