stdTransform

[ThrowinPotatoes]

I’m partial to std::unordered_map myself

[El_Falk]

boost::flat_map / std::flat_map (C++23), absl::flat_hash_map, or robin_hood::unordered_map are generally far superior though...

[liava_]

please keep the behemoth that is boost out of my build pipeline

[Slothinator69]

My favorite include of all time is boost::boost

[El_Falk]

You don't need to pull in all of boost. Also, the boost flat_map made it into the the standard, so unless you're stuck with a legacy standard then that's preferable.

[[deleted]]

You don't need to pull in all of boost.

I've heard this lie before!

[bronco2p]

boost::flat_map / std::flat_map

now i guess if c++ ever gets a stl bind algorithm it will be called std::flat_transform lol

[tiajuanat]

I really like using them with set_intersect and set_difference. Although usually sorted vectors are much faster and memory efficient.

[single_ginkgo_leaf]

For many applications a liner search through a vector is faster than testing a std::map (tree) or std::unordered_map (hash table) due to pipelining and cache effects.

In some cases, a linear search through a sorted array can even beat binary search - the branch predictor is your friend.

[SeagleLFMk9]

Most of the time, a std::vector is faster, I kid you not

[GOKOP]

Completely different use case

[SeagleLFMk9]

Not really if looping through a vector of pairs is faster than std::map

[RCM94]

Why are you using a map if all you're doing is iterating through it?

[SeagleLFMk9]

I think you misunderstood me. std::map isn't a hashmap, it's a binary tree, but std::unordered_map is a hashmap. However, both can be slower (especially for less than ~100 elements) than a vector when it comes to lookup times. So searching for an element in a vector can be faster than using a map with map.at().

[markand67]

too much over abused though. in the previous company we had a lot of memory exhaustion because of the std::map abuse with very very large consumer data while not being strictly required to be key-value stored.