Re: [boost] [multi_index]hashed_index erase(iterator) performance issue

Subject: Re: [boost] [multi_index]hashed_index erase(iterator) performance issue
From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-17 17:22:36

Brad Higgins <bhiggins <at> arbor.net> writes:

> 
> 
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 5:56 PM, OvermindDL1 wrote:
> >
> > We all know about the performance hit, however that style is mandated
> > by the standard (which thankfully is still in flux, hopefully they
> > will remove the need for it to return the iterator).
> 
> I researched it further yesterday, and found the thread about the  
> identical issue with unordered_map (I need to read my boost mail more  
> often!).  I'm going to implement a void-return style version of erase,  
> like the workaround in unordered_map, and use that until this issue is  
> resolved officially.

Hi Brad,

I'm keeping track of the aforementioned thread as well
as the discussions within the C++ committee. As soon as
some consensus is reached I'll adapt Boost.MultiIndex
accordingly.

Thank you for using Boost.MultiIndex,

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo