CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++vectordictionary
Alexis Wilke
Alexis Wilke

Reputation: 20818

std::map<> or std::vector<> when dealing with large sets of flags?

I am working on a compiler and have a large set of flags. In most cases, my nodes will receive a very small number of flags (about 12 for the largest), but the total number of flags is rather large (over 50.) All the flags are integers defined in an enum:

enum flags_t
{
    FLAG_ONE,
    FLAG_TWO,
    FLAG_THREE,
    [...]
    MAX_FLAG
};

I am thinking that using an std::map<flags_t, bool> makes more sense because most of my nodes are likely to use 0, 1, or 2 flags and the number of nodes is really large (it can easily become tenth of thousands.)

// with a map we have to check the existing on a get to avoid creating
// useless entries in the map
bool node::get_flag(flags_t const f)
{
    flag_iterator it(f_flags.find(f));
    return it == f_flags.end() ? false : *it;
}

void node::set_flag(flags_t const f, bool const value)
{
    f_flags[f] = value;
}

But I'm wondering whether std::vector<bool> would not actually end up being more effective? Although at first sight this looks good:

bool node::get_flag(flags_t const f)
{
    return f_flags[f];
}

void node::set_flag(flags_t const f, bool const value)
{
    f_flags[f] = value;
}

The vector needs to be allocated (i.e. sized properly) on initialization or the get_flag() functions needs to test whether f is part of the vector:

bool node::get_flag(flags_t const f)
{
    return f >= f_flags.size() ? false : f_flags[f];
}

The problem I can see with a resize() call is that we would allocate / free memory all the time, even if we end up never actually using the vector (most nodes don't need any flags!) So testing the limit when we do a get is probably a good trade off, but we also need to make sure that the vector is large enough on the set_flag() call... (in which case we'd probably allocate the whole set of flags at once to avoid reallocations.)

bool node::set_flag(flags_t const f, bool const value)
{
    if(MAX_FLAG > f_flags.size())
    {
        f_flags.resize(MAX_FLAG);
    }
    f_flags[f] = value;
}

So... would std::vector or std::map be better? Or would possibly std::set be even better? (I have not used std::set before...)

Upvotes: 1

Views: 545

Answers (1)

user4815162342
user4815162342

Reputation: 155436

Both std::set and std::map are a suboptimal choice for flags because they allocate storage dynamically, causing unnecessary fragmentation.

A simple way to represent flags is by storing them in an integral type. An unsigned 64-bit type will provide room for 64 flags. This will be both space-efficient and CPU-efficient, and idiomatic C++ to boot. For example:

enum flag_code
{
    FLAG_ONE = 1ULL << 0,
    FLAG_TWO = 1ULL << 1,
    FLAG_THREE = 1ULL << 2,
    [...]
};

typedef uint64_t flags_t;

void node::set_flag(flag_code f, bool value)
{
    if (value)
        f_flags |= f;
    else
        f_flags &= ~f;
}

bool node::get_flag(flag_code f)
{
    return bool(f_flags & f);
}

If more than 64 flags are needed, the bit manipulation is best left expressed with std::bitset, which also offers array-like access to individual bits of the underlying value:

enum flag_code
{
    FLAG_ONE,
    FLAG_TWO,
    FLAG_THREE,
    [...]
    MAX_FLAG
};

typedef std::bitset<MAX_FLAG - 1> flags_t;

void node::set_flag(flag_code f, bool value)
{
    f_flags[f] = value;
}

bool node::get_flag(flag_code f)
{
    return f_flags[f];
}

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions