FetchBoostContent
parallel-hashmap
FetchBoostContent | parallel-hashmap | |
---|---|---|
2 | 31 | |
10 | 2,326 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 7.8 | |
almost 2 years ago | 28 days ago | |
CMake | C++ | |
Boost Software License 1.0 | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
FetchBoostContent
-
Boost.URL ACCEPTED, get the beta now!
c) If you are concerned that you won't be able to do that from CMake, like with FetchContent or something, then there are scripts that can do that for you. Or you can use boostdep to bundle the subset of boost you need with your library.
-
New Boost.Unordered containers have BIG improvements!
You can fetch it with only the individual header-only modules on which it depends with https://github.com/alandefreitas/FetchBoostContent
parallel-hashmap
-
The One Billion Row Challenge in CUDA: from 17 minutes to 17 seconds
Standard library maps/unordered_maps are themselves notoriously slow anyway. A sparse_hash_map from abseil or parallel-hashmaps[1] would be better.
[1] https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap
-
My own Concurrent Hash Map picks
Cool! Looking forward to you trying my phmap - and please let me know if you have any question.
-
Boost 1.81 will have boost::unordered_flat_map...
I do this as well in my phmap and gtl implementations. It makes the tables look worse in benchmarks like the above, but prevents really bad surprises occasionally.
-
Comprehensive C++ Hashmap Benchmarks 2022
Thanks a lot for the great benchmark, Martin. Glad you used different hash functions, because I do sacrifice some speed to make sure that the performance of my hash maps doesn't degrade drastically with poor hash functions. Happy to see that my phmap and gtl (the C++20 version) performed well.
-
Can C++ maps be as efficient as Python dictionaries ?
I use https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap when I need better performance of maps and sets.
-
How to build a Chess Engine, an interactive guide
Then they should really try https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap, the current state of the art.
-
boost::unordered map is a new king of data structures
Unordered hash map shootout CMAP = https://github.com/tylov/STC KMAP = https://github.com/attractivechaos/klib PMAP = https://github.com/greg7mdp/parallel-hashmap FMAP = https://github.com/skarupke/flat_hash_map RMAP = https://github.com/martinus/robin-hood-hashing HMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/hopscotch-map TMAP = https://github.com/Tessil/robin-map UMAP = std::unordered_map Usage: shootout [n-million=40 key-bits=25] Random keys are in range [0, 2^25). Seed = 1656617916: T1: Insert/update random keys: KMAP: time: 1.949, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 CMAP: time: 1.649, size: 15064129, buckets: 22145833, sum: 165525449561381 PMAP: time: 2.434, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 FMAP: time: 2.112, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 RMAP: time: 1.708, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554431, sum: 165525449561381 HMAP: time: 2.054, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 TMAP: time: 1.645, size: 15064129, buckets: 33554432, sum: 165525449561381 UMAP: time: 6.313, size: 15064129, buckets: 31160981, sum: 165525449561381 T2: Insert sequential keys, then remove them in same order: KMAP: time: 1.173, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 CMAP: time: 1.651, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 20000000 PMAP: time: 3.840, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 FMAP: time: 1.722, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 RMAP: time: 2.359, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 20000000 HMAP: time: 0.849, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 TMAP: time: 0.660, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 20000000 UMAP: time: 2.138, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 20000000 T3: Remove random keys: KMAP: time: 1.973, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 CMAP: time: 2.020, size: 0, buckets: 33218751, erased 23367671 PMAP: time: 2.940, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 FMAP: time: 1.147, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 RMAP: time: 1.941, size: 0, buckets: 33554431, erased 23367671 HMAP: time: 1.135, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 TMAP: time: 1.064, size: 0, buckets: 33554432, erased 23367671 UMAP: time: 5.632, size: 0, buckets: 31160981, erased 23367671 T4: Iterate random keys: KMAP: time: 0.748, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 CMAP: time: 0.627, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 PMAP: time: 0.680, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 FMAP: time: 0.735, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 RMAP: time: 0.464, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 HMAP: time: 0.719, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 TMAP: time: 0.662, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 UMAP: time: 6.168, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, repeats: 8, sum: 4465059465719680 T5: Lookup random keys: KMAP: time: 0.943, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 CMAP: time: 0.863, size: 23367671, buckets: 33218751, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 PMAP: time: 1.635, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 FMAP: time: 0.969, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 RMAP: time: 1.705, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554431, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 HMAP: time: 0.712, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 TMAP: time: 0.584, size: 23367671, buckets: 33554432, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438 UMAP: time: 1.974, size: 23367671, buckets: 31160981, lookups: 34235332, found: 29040438
-
Is A* just always slow?
std::unordered_map is notorious for being slow. Use a better implementation (I like the flat naps from here, which are the same as abseil’s). The question that needs to be asked too is if you need to use a map.
-
New Boost.Unordered containers have BIG improvements!
A comparison against phmap would also be nice.
-
How to implement static typing in a C++ bytecode VM?
std::unordered_map is perfectly fine. You can do better with external libraries, like parallel hashmap, but these tend to be drop-in replacements
What are some alternatives?
unordered - Boost.org unordered module
Folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook.
cmake-examples - Useful CMake Examples
robin-hood-hashing - Fast & memory efficient hashtable based on robin hood hashing for C++11/14/17/20
boost - cmake based plugable static compiled boost library
libcuckoo - A high-performance, concurrent hash table
CPM.cmake - 📦 CMake's missing package manager. A small CMake script for setup-free, cross-platform, reproducible dependency management.
rust-phf - Compile time static maps for Rust
boostdep - A tool to create Boost module dependency reports
flat_hash_map - A very fast hashtable
Vcpkg - C++ Library Manager for Windows, Linux, and MacOS
tracy - Frame profiler