I have found a couple of ways to update a key in the priority queue when I searched online. I am just wondering what way of implementation do you prefer using existing C++ STL data structures?
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3823 |
3 | Benq | 3738 |
4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
10 | gamegame | 3386 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 167 |
2 | Um_nik | 163 |
3 | maomao90 | 162 |
3 | atcoder_official | 162 |
5 | adamant | 159 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
7 | awoo | 157 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
9 | nor | 153 |
I have found a couple of ways to update a key in the priority queue when I searched online. I am just wondering what way of implementation do you prefer using existing C++ STL data structures?
Name |
---|
Just use set instead of a priority queue. It has the same functionality (keys are in sorted order), you can get first key by using *myset.begin(). And if you want to update some key called "key", then you just erase the key using, myset.erase(myset.find(key)), then add the updated version of the key — called "updated_key" — by using, myset.insert(updated_key). This is what I use when i implement dijkstra's algorithm.
Also note, that they "erase", and "find" operations in a set are O(logn), while getting the beginning iterator, "myset.begin()) is only O(1). So this is quite an efficient solution.
This looks good, thanks.
I think you are going to make the same mistake of using set instead of multiset.
Haha I see you read my blog! You are right i just made the same mistake. Thanks for pointing it out!
you can also use
__gnu_pbds::priority_queue
: it hasmodify(iterator, value)