From: Jeremy Bruestle (jeremy.bruestle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-11 09:39:00
On 8/10/07, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I worked on a project where we found that copying of maps was one of
> the major bottle-necks, so we converted most of them to sorted
> vectors, and that fixed it.
> We didn't need the sorted vectors to have all the same behaviour as
> maps, but I've had a plan for vector-based maps sitting on the
> back-burner for a while now. Might be something to consider.
It is true the vector copies are more efficient, but they are still
linear time to copy. The bigger problem though is that each copy
typically needs a few inserts done, so it's A.insert, A.insert,
A.insert, B = A, B.insert, B.insert, B.insert, C = B, C.insert,
C.insert, C.insert, so sorted vectors wouldn't work since they are bad
at dealing with insertions.
Also, I think I've figured out a better way to do iterators. I'll
post again once I've gotten it all worked out.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk