how do you insert the value in a sorted vector?

Question

ALL,

This question is a continuation of this one. I think that STL misses this functionality, but it just my IMHO.

Now, to the question.

Consider following code:

class Foo
{
public:
    Foo();
    int paramA, paramB;
    std::string name;
};

struct Sorter
{
    bool operator()(const Foo &foo1, const Foo &foo2) const
    {
         switch( paramSorter )
         {
             case 1:
                 return foo1.paramA < foo2.paramA;
             case 2:
                 return foo1.paramB < foo2.paramB;
             default:
                 return foo1.name < foo2.name;
         }
    }

    int paramSorter;
};

int main()
{
    std::vector<Foo> foo;
    Sorter sorter;
    sorter.paramSorter = 0;
        // fill the vector
    std::sort( foo.begin(), foo.end(), sorter );
}

At any given moment of time the vector can be re-sorted. The class also have the getter methods which are used in the sorter structure.

What would be the most efficient way to insert a new element in the vector?

Situation I have is:

I have a grid (spreadsheet), that uses the sorted vector of a class. At any given time the vector can be re-sorted and the grid will display the sorted data accordingly.

Now I will need to insert a new element in the vector/grid. I can insert, then re-sort and then re-display the whole grid, but this is very inefficient especially for the big grid.

Any help would be appreciated.

Solution 1

The simple answer to the question:

template< typename T >
typename std::vector<T>::iterator 
   insert_sorted( std::vector<T> & vec, T const& item )
{
    return vec.insert
        ( 
            std::upper_bound( vec.begin(), vec.end(), item ),
            item 
        );
}

Version with a predicate.

template< typename T, typename Pred >
typename std::vector<T>::iterator
    insert_sorted( std::vector<T> & vec, T const& item, Pred pred )
{
    return vec.insert
        ( 
           std::upper_bound( vec.begin(), vec.end(), item, pred ),
           item 
        );
}

Where Pred is a strictly-ordered predicate on type T.

For this to work the input vector must already be sorted on this predicate.

The complexity of doing this is O(log N) for the upper_bound search (finding where to insert) but up to O(N) for the insert itself.

For a better complexity you could use std::set<T> if there are not going to be any duplicates or std::multiset<T> if there may be duplicates. These will retain a sorted order for you automatically and you can specify your own predicate on these too.

There are various other things you could do which are more complex, e.g. manage a vector and a set / multiset / sorted vector of newly added items then merge these in when there are enough of them. Any kind of iterating through your collection will need to run through both collections.

Using a second vector has the advantage of keeping your data compact. Here your "newly added" items vector will be relatively small so the insertion time will be O(M) where M is the size of this vector and might be more feasible than the O(N) of inserting in the big vector every time. The merge would be O(N+M) which is better than O(NM) it would be inserting one at a time, so in total it would be O(N+M) + O(M²) to insert M elements then merge.

You would probably keep the insertion vector at its capacity too, so as you grow that you will not be doing any reallocations, just moving of elements.

Solution 2

If you need to keep the vector sorted all the time, first you might consider whether using std::set or std::multiset won't simplify your code.

If you really need a sorted vector and want to quickly insert an element into it, but do not want to enforce a sorting criterion to be satisfied all the time, then you can first use std::lower_bound() to find the position in a sorted range where the element should be inserted in logarithmic time, then use the insert() member function of vector to insert the element at that position.

If performance is an issue, consider benchmarking std::list vs std::vector. For small items, std::vector is known to be faster because of a higher cache hit rate, but the insert() operation itself is computationally faster on lists (no need to move elements around).

Solution 3

Just a note, you can use upper_bound as well depending on your needs. upper_bound will assure new entries that are equivalent to others will appear at the end of their sequence, lower_bound will assure new entries equivalent to others will appear at the beginning of their sequence. Can be useful for certain implementations (maybe classes that can share a "position" but not all of their details!)

Both will assure you that the vector remains sorted according to < result of elements, although inserting into lower_bound will mean moving more elements.

Example:

insert 7 @ lower_bound of { 5, 7, 7, 9 } => { 5, *7*, 7, 7, 9 }
insert 7 @ upper_bound of { 5, 7, 7, 9 } => { 5, 7, 7, *7*, 9 }