**UPD:** Tricks to make `unordered_map`

faster added.

Hi!

##### What is `unordred_map`

?

It is a data structure like `map`

but it is more than 4 times faster than `map`

.you can use it in C++11 with including `#include<unordered_map>`

.for example:

```
#include<unordered_map>
using namespace std;
int main(){
unordered_map<int,int>mp;
mp[5]=12;
mp[4]=14;
cout<<mp[5]<<' '<<mp[4]<<endl;//prints: 12 14
}
```

Lets explain it more.

##### How it works?

Focus on `unordered_set`

for simplify.You can imagine that it has vector of vector like `vector<vector<type> > mp`

. Every time you insert value `V`

in that, it calculate its `hash`

(I will explain how it works), let `hash(V)=K`

; it inserts `V`

into `mp[K]`

(formally it calls `mp[K].push_back(V)`

).When you call `mp.count(V)`

it searchs for `V`

in `mp[K]`

.

`map`

VS `unordered_map`

(and `set`

VS `unordered_set`

)

**1- unordered_map is more than 4 times faster**

Focus on problem 527E - Data Center Drama, it seems that it is good to use `unordered_map`

instead of `map`

.

My submission with `map`

: 14269000 Time:484 MS.

My submission with `unordered_map`

: 14269381 Time:358 MS.

Another good sample to show how fast is `unordered_map`

is problem 178C3 - Smart Beaver and Resolving Collisions:

My submission with `map`

: 15781810 Time limit exceeded on test 36 .

My submission with `unordered_map`

: 15774685 Accepted (Time:966 MS).

**2- unordered_set (and unordered_map) is not sorted**

Please note that `set`

(and `map`

) is sorted, for example *(s.begin()) is always smallest number in the set; but in `unordered_set`

it isn't. similarly there isn't `lower_bound`

and `upper_bound`

in `unordered_set`

(and `unordered_map`

similarly).

##### Creating hash function for structs

Now, **one other problem** remains, you can try to compile this code:

```
unordered_map<pair<int,int>,int>mp;
```

You will get Compilation Error! Why? See this page for `unordered_map`

supported types. For unsupported types, you have to create your own hash function for use. For example lets see how we can create a hash function for `pair<int,int>`

.

As you know any `int`

value is between -2^31+1 to 2^31-1.so if we create function that for every `pair<int,int>`

returns distinct value in type `size_t`

(alias of `unsigned int`

), it will be done. It is pretty easy: `x.first^(x.second<<32)`

is good. but be careful about overflow ;for having good hash function we use `hash<long long>`

.The code is looks like this:

```
struct HASH{
size_t operator()(const pair<int,int>&x)const{
return hash<long long>()(((long long)x.first)^(((long long)x.second)<<32));
}
};
unordered_map<pair<int,int>,int,HASH>mp;
```

Now you have a `unordered_map`

of `pair<int,int>`

(it isn't problem what is second member, in example it was `int`

).Creating hash function for other structs is same.

##### How to test `unordered_map`

is faster than `map`

?

You can test that for N=10^6, `unordered_set`

(`unordered_map`

) is more than 4 times faster than `set`

(`map`

) ;with this code:(compile code with command: g++ file.cpp -std=c++11 **-O2**)

```
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
unordered_set<int>s;//replace it with set for test.
int main(){
auto T=clock();
s.reserve(32768); //updated !
s.max_load_factor(0.25); //updated !
for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++)
s.insert(i);
cout<<double(clock()-T)/CLOCKS_PER_SEC<<'\n';
}
```

**Note1:** Let your hash function `H(V)`

, it is better that H(V) returns distinct value for every distinct `V`

, it makes `unordered_map`

faster; but if you can't do that **it doesn't problem**. The only problem is that `unordered_map`

becomes slower(however it is better than `map`

).

**Note2:** Please be careful about your hash function time complexly! it is fun to use this hash function:

```
struct HASH{
size_t operator()(const pair<int,int>&x)const{
size_t ans=0;
for(int i=0;i<x.first;i++)
ans+=x.second;
return ans;
}
};
```

**UPD** I will explain `hash<type>`

in my next post.

**UPD** It seems that sometimes `unordered_map`

becames so slow.but it can improve with this two lines of code:

```
unordered_map<int,int>mp;
mp.reserve(1024);
mp.max_load_factor(0.25);
```

With this two lines `unordered_map`

become about 10 times faster. You can replace `1024`

with another suitable power of two.(it depends on number of `insert`

s you will do).

Thank you so much! I had no idea about this. From now I'll use it as much as possible :)you can use

`unordered_set/map`

when you don't need order of members.for example one of

`unordered_set`

applications is when you are storing all of the settings of one vector (for example); you can store them in unordered_set.for example:you will never check the same vectors with that trick!

Unordered_map isn't faster than map when count of elements isn't much. Sorry for bad eng :)

if N is about 100 ;

`map`

has equal time with`unordred_map`

.but you can test it when N is about 10^6. it seems that

`unordered_map`

is about 4 times faster than`map`

.Most competitive programming environments are still 32-bit. So, by doing

`^(((long long)x.second)<<32)`

and then implicitly casting to`size_t`

, you are effectively discarding`x.second`

. Now, the hash depends only on`x.first`

.Here is the code to check that:

Note

`make_pair (1, i)`

. The above test takes more than a second locally when compiled in 32-bit mode. You can run a custom test in any Codeforces past contest and check for yourself.Post edited.

Sorry, I don't get what you are saying.

So what? That's still on the order of a second.

Note that we insert

20,000elements, not a million like you do. If insertingtwenty thousand, again, elements takes on the order of a second, that's quadratic behavior, or at least definitely not linear. The constant20,000is used instead of your code's1,000,000so that we can actually see the result in reasonable time. One can make it1,000,000and watch it time out (I, for one, wasn't patient enough to let it finish).Also, note that changing

`make_pair (1, i)`

to`make_pair (i, i)`

makes the program run in an instant (less than 100 ms).To summarize again:

Codeforces checks your solutions in a 32-bit environment.

So,

`size_t`

is 32 bits long.So, for every possible

`X`

and`Y`

, the result of`X ^ (((long long)Y)<<32)`

converted to`size_t`

is just`X`

.So, the hashes for pairs

`(1, 0)`

,`(1, 1)`

,`(1, 2)`

,`(1, 3)`

, ...,`(1, 999999)`

will be equal, and`unordered_map`

will have trouble storing them.I have interested! thank you.

I have changed my hash function, you can see the new one.

I have mistaken,

`size_t`

is alias of`unsigned int`

, no`unsigned long long int`

.The new hash approach perhaps does something like

`x * 37 + y`

anyway, so why not do that explicitly?On a side note, I'm surprised that a language as mature as C++ (11) does not define a default hashing method for library containers such as pair or vector.

It has one for vector:

`hash<vector<int> >`

.You can use it for pair, first create a vector of

`{x.first,x.second}`

and use`hash<vector<int> >`

.Can you please elaborate?

I try the following:

And it does not compile (MinGW GCC 4.8.1 and 5.1.0), throwing some 100+ lines of error messages at me, basically stating that I misuse

`hash<vector <int> >`

. Removing`()`

after`hash<vector<int> >`

does not help.Googling for a few minutes did not help me either. I only found a reference stating that it is not implemented in the library, and a few implementations for custom types.

You can create it like this:

So, what you are saying is that there is in fact

nobuilt-in`hash<vector<int> >`

after all? Then my point still stands.I won't deny that almost anything is possible with C++. I'm just surprised some trivial pieces of that work aren't in the library already.

if i want to declare an unordered map like that unordered_map< pair<pair<int,int> ,int> frq;

example : it is something like that : frq[ ( (2,3) , 5 ) ];

Or

if i want to declare an unordered map like that unordered_map< pair<pair<int,int> ,pair<int,int> > frq;

example : it is something like that => frq[( (2,3) , (4,5) ) ];

How can i write my own hash function ?

I run these two versions of

`map`

and`unordered_map`

on custome test with GNU G++11 5.1.0. I see that`unordered_map`

is slower than`map`

Version of

`map`

:Version of

`unordered_map`

:Why is that?

On Intel® Core™ i3 CPU M 390 @ 2.67GHz × 4 :

`map`

: 2469 MS`unordered_map`

: 485 MSOn CodeForces:

`map`

: 2469 MS`unordered_map`

: 1885 MShey @Arpa can u explain me the struct HASH code? thanks in advance.....

You should implement

`operator ()`

for this struct. It takes an object and returns size_t (alias of unsigned int). You should write it in a way such that minimize the number of conflicts.Add this two lines:

Auto comment: topic has been updated by arpa (previous revision, new revision, compare).What does this mean ?

`s.max_load_factor(0.25);`

And which library it uses ?

The load factor is the ratio between the number of elements in the container (its size) and the number of buckets (bucket_count). (source)

it uses

`<unordered_map>`

(or`<unordered_set>`

) for sure.Hi can anyone explain, why map is more than 10 times faster in this case? I could not find any reason for this. any help on this matter would be highy appreciated. I also tried adding the 2 lines of code mentioned above to make unordered_map faster but with no luck. 21740384 and 21740655

Because

maphas a logarithmic access time on size always, on the other hand,unordered_mapin average has a constant access time, but in worst case it's just linear in size.Thanks for the quick reply! I am aware of the worst case complexity of unordered map. However, usually most of the times unordered map is observed to be faster. Can you share any further insights on deciding between unordered map and map. And also what is making unordered map slower than map in the above case I presented? i,e.. what kinds of data is suitable to be represented by map and unordered_map exactly?

EDIT: I see that the test case on which unordered map gave TLE involves hashing a multiple of some fixed number. Has this got something to do with the TLE(I believe it must be the reason). Also, was the testcase specifically designed so that unordered_map fails on it, How do we make sure not to fall in such traps if so?

Please see the following issue: http://codeforces.com/blog/entry/44705?#comment-292160

Thanks a lot! I'm sorry for posting on the wrong blog. I should have found that post myself. But I'm new here :D

This problem can resolved with

`reserve`

trick.Like this : 21771219.

It's not a trick if you know how unordered_map works.

I know how it works. Read post again carefully.

I have explained in post how it works.

Hi Arpa,

Is there any way to limit the size of the map? I mean for example not to allow for the map to contain more than 256 elements? Is there any built in solution for this. Somewhere I've seen before that it have been used like this:

`unordered_map <int,int> map_name(256);`

Is this valid?

Thank you in advance.

Hi. I have 3 questions.

Why must the input value for the reserve() method be a power of 2?

Is there formula to determine the input value for the reserve() method? Let's say we use mp.reserve(x) where x is a power of 2. Does that mean that x must be >= N, where N is the number of elements that we are going to input into the unordered_map?

How did you determine the value for the max_load_factor? Is that supposed to be a magic value?

Please advise me.

Thank you for your hard work, but unfortunately I don't find it that much useful with all that painful implementation.

AC using map: 33860000

TLE using unordered_map: 33860168 [ Yes, I used the tricks you mentioned to make unordered map faster. Also I have used the Hash function that you gave in the post for pair<int, int>

So, how can I believe that unorded_map is faster than map ??

It's really confusing when to use unordered_map and when to use map. My submission with map takes 1450 ms: 38906751 Same submission with unordered_map takes 467 ms:38906911 Though both passed time limit (3 s), if the time limit was 1-1.3 s, solution using map would have failed.

You just need to use a better hash function for pair<int,int> to get your solution passed. The hash function proposed here for pair<int,int> clearly isn't a good one. Read the above discussion here. I have changed your hash function and your TLE code gets ac for that problem. Here's the ac code with modified hash function.

But is it always safe to use unordered_map in contests, since in worst case unordered_map can be of O(n)? Should anyone use unordered_map always instead of map ?

SUMFOUR — 4 values whose sum is 0onSPOJin an example where unordered_map with reserve() will giveACand others will giveTLEََُArpa youre the best :)