Subject: Re: [boost] [flat_map] Any interest in a flat_map variant that is much faster on insertion/erase at the price of a slower lookup?
From: Dominique Devienne (ddevienne_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-03-13 04:27:56
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Ion GaztaÃ±aga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> El 13/03/2015 a las 8:51, Giacomo Drago escribiÃ³:
>> My library is not ready for a formal review process, and I'd like to ask
>> whether there is some potential interest first, thus saving everybody a
>> lot of time.
>> I have been working on a flat_map
>> variant that keeps some of the distinctive features of the original one
>> (contiguous storage/cache friendliness, zero memory
>> overhead/shrink_to_fit support, vector-based representation, etc...) but
>> makes insertion and erasure of the elements much faster, at the price of
>> a slower lookup and in-order traversal.
> Just a question. Are your insertions one by one or by range?
Might also be interesting to know if your perf numbers are based on a
primitive key or a UDT, and whether the relative performance changes
depending on key/value sizes. --DD
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk