#include <iostream>
#include <boost/icl/split_interval_map.hpp>
using namespace std;
using namespace boost::icl;
int main()
{
split_interval_map<double, int> intervals;
intervals.add(make_pair(interval<double>::closed(0.,1.),0));
intervals.add(make_pair(interval<double>::closed(1.,2.),1));
intervals.add(make_pair(interval<double>::closed(3.,4.),2));
intervals.add(make_pair(interval<double>::closed(2.,4.),3));
intervals.add(make_pair(interval<double>::closed(1.5,3.5),4));
std::vector<double> probes = { 0.23, 1., 1.33 , 1.57, 3.49, 3.51 };
for(auto probe : probes)
{
std::cout << std::endl<< "probe " << probe << std::endl;
auto lower = intervals.lower_bound(interval<double>::closed(probe, probe));
auto upper = intervals.upper_bound(interval<double>::closed(probe, probe));
while(lower != upper)
{
std::cout << lower->second << " ";
++lower;
}
}
}
int
s) of the interval containing 'probe'. (intersection?)std::set<int>
as value, but in the documentation it is stated, that this has a huge impact on performance. Seems like split_interval_map contains that information but i don't know how to retrieve it it.
- What i get are the indices added up. But i'm looking for all the values (ints) of the interval containing 'probe'. (intersection?)
You get all the values (the co-domain values) combined using the combiner of your choosing. For an arithmetic type, that implies summation.
If your co-domain is an index, clearly summation is not meaningful combiner, and you should choose something else.
I could achieve this with
std::set<int>
as value, but in the documentation it is stated, that this has a huge impact on performance.
As always, correct goes before performance. If it's what you need, it's what you need.
Seems like split_interval_map contains that information but i don't know how to retrieve it it.
Not with the chosen co-domain: the combiner loses the original information if intervals overlap (and you use add
, not set
).
I need only a highly efficient lookup like in this example. I don't need the intersecting interval ranges anymore. Is boost icl too heavy for this?
You could use equal_range
instead of lower_bound
/upper_bound
:
for (auto probe : { 0.23, 1., 1.33, 1.57, 3.49, 3.51 }) {
std::cout << "\nprobe " << probe << ": ";
for (auto& p : boost::make_iterator_range(m.equal_range(Ival::closed(probe, probe)))) {
std::cout << p.second << " ";
}
}
Prints
probe 0.23:
probe 1: 1
probe 1.33: 1
probe 1.57: 4
probe 3.49: 4
probe 3.51: 3
m.add({Ival::closed(0., 1.), 0});
m.add({Ival::closed(1., 2.), 1});
m.add({Ival::closed(3., 4.), 2});
These intervals subtly overlap. [0, 1]
and [1, 2]
have [1,1]
in common. Did you really mean left_open
? ([0, 1)
and [1, 2)
have no overlap).
m.add({Ival::closed(2., 4.), 3});
m.add({Ival::closed(1.5, 3.5), 4});
If you were surprised by the fact that this combines the values already in the overlapping interval(s), did you mean to replace them?
m.set({Ival::closed(2., 4.), 3});
m.set({Ival::closed(1.5, 3.5), 4});
You could do the intersection with the set of probes at once:
Set probes;
probes.insert(0.23);
probes.insert(1.);
probes.insert(1.33);
probes.insert(1.57);
probes.insert(3.49);
probes.insert(3.51);
std::cout << std::endl << "all: " << (m & probes) << "\n";
Prints:
all: {([1,1]->1)([1.33,1.33]->1)([1.57,1.57]->4)([3.49,3.49]->4)([3.51,3.51]->3)}
To (maybe?) optimize that a little:
using Map = icl::split_interval_map<double, boost::container::flat_set<int> >;
If the sets are going to be small, consider specifying small_vector for that flat_set's sequence type:
icl::split_interval_map<double,
boost::container::flat_set<int, std::less<int>,
boost::container::small_vector<int, 4>
> >;
All else just still works: Live On Coliru
Completely OUT-OF-THE-BOX: are you modeling geometric regions? Like intervals on a timeline? Or just line-segments on an axis? In that case, consider boost::geometry::index::rtree<>