Re:JSON for Modern C++ version 3.10.0
by spacechild1 on Thursday August 19, 2021 @02:45PM
(#28237663)
> I didn't meant to imply it will perform worse than std::map
You literally suggested to (almost) always prefer std::map...
> Every node has to be stored as separately allocated linked list entry.
But it's basically the same for std::map. Both containers have similar design constraints. I am aware that std::unordered_map uses more memory than std::map, but why should it be slower in the general case? After all, hashtables trade memory for speed.
> But if you do, you'd probably be well-advised to try out hash map implementations that actually don't leave performance on the table by design.
I agree. But the same is true for std::map (someone has already mentioned flat maps).
You literally suggested to (almost) always prefer std::map...
> Every node has to be stored as separately allocated linked list entry.
But it's basically the same for std::map. Both containers have similar design constraints. I am aware that std::unordered_map uses more memory than std::map, but why should it be slower in the general case? After all, hashtables trade memory for speed.
> But if you do, you'd probably be well-advised to try out hash map implementations that actually don't leave performance on the table by design.
I agree. But the same is true for std::map (someone has already mentioned flat maps).