From: John P. <jwp...@gm...> - 2013-11-01 19:28:45
|
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Roy Stogner <roy...@ic...>wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Nov 2013, John Peterson wrote: > > unordered_map ends up somewhere between vector<pair> and map in terms of >> memory usage. >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/**d/0B9BK7pg8se_** >> iTFBBSTZzSm8xSTA/edit?usp=**sharing<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9BK7pg8se_iTFBBSTZzSm8xSTA/edit?usp=sharing> >> >> > > Interesting, thanks! > > I assume that y label should read "megabytes", not "kilobytes? > Indeed. I blame half-assed python hackers for that one... For completeness, here's the memory results for all the main containers: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9BK7pg8se_iQXJibnA2Zkg0TE0/edit?usp=sharing unordered_map memory usage is on par with std::list, which jives with the doubly-linked implementations discussed in the blog posting. The biggest offender is actually unordered_set, although unordered_set<pair>, with the hash computed on the first member of the pair, is arguably something you would never do since maps exist. -- John |