Can this copy be avoided?

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

Suppose you have a type A which has some cost associated with copying it that we'd like to avoid.

I want to have a collection where A forms part of the key, say...

C++

std::map< std::pair<A, int>, std::string> myMap;

Now I want to do a look up like this...

C++

void SomeMethod(const A& a, int b)
{
   iterator it = myMap.find(std::make_pair(a, b));
}

...make_pair(...) copies the A because the map's key type is

C++

std::pair<A, int>

not

C++

std::pair<const A&, int>

Can anyone suggest a way to avoid the copy of A?

Posted 17-Dec-12 18:56pm

User 583852

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Eugen Podsypalnikov · Answer 1 · 2012-12-17T19:57:00

Solution 1

// not std::pair<const A&, int>

Why not ?

It could be also std::pair<const A*, int>
or std::pair<std::auto_ptr<A>&, int> :)

Posted 17-Dec-12 19:57pm

Eugen Podsypalnikov

Updated 17-Dec-12 19:58pm

v2

Comments

[no name] 18-Dec-12 2:27am

But then I'd have to manage memory for the pointers and ill get worse cache performance because things will be all over the place in memory.

Eugen Podsypalnikov 18-Dec-12 2:56am

// worse cache performance, because things will be all over the place in memory
First - please remember that the all objects are in the memory (once or twice ;-))

I think, it (worse cache performance) is wrong :) ,
because a map will work with pointer- (or reference-) keys in its hash-table _more_faster_
as with full full-dumped-copies keys.

Above all, your code will be more canny (in the memory usage context).

Philippe Mori · Answer 2 · 2012-12-18T14:58:00

Typically you don't want to use large object for a key.

You might also be able to keep a std::pair<a,> somewhere and pass it by reference to SomeMethod to avoid extra construction particulary in a loop.

Are you using the whole A object for ordering ? If not, then maybe a better design would be to have a simpler key and a more complete value.

Generally your key should be simple and a small object and the value would have all the information. Something similar to this:

C++

struct PairAndString 
{
    A first;
    int second;
    std::string third;
};

// Only fields necessary for sorting and comparison in key. Everything else moved to the value part.
std::map<a_key,> myMap;