I am trying to create an unordered_map
to map pairs with integers:
#include <unordered_map>
using namespace std;
using Vote = pair<string, string>;
using Unordered_map = unordered_map<Vote, int>;
I have a class where I have declared an Unordered_map
as a private member.
However, I am getting the following error when I try to compile it:
/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/include/c++/v1/type_traits:948:38: Implicit instantiation of undefined template 'std::__1::hash, std::__1::basic_string > >'
I am not getting this error if I use a regular map like map<pair<string, string>, int>
instead of an unordered_map
.
Is it not possible to use pair
as key in unordered maps?
You need to provide a suitable hash function for your key type. A simple example:
#include <unordered_map>
#include <functional>
#include <string>
#include <utility>
// Only for pairs of std::hash-able types for simplicity.
// You can of course template this struct to allow other hash functions
struct pair_hash {
template <class T1, class T2>
std::size_t operator () (const std::pair<T1,T2> &p) const {
auto h1 = std::hash<T1>{}(p.first);
auto h2 = std::hash<T2>{}(p.second);
// Mainly for demonstration purposes, i.e. works but is overly simple
// In the real world, use sth. like boost.hash_combine
return h1 ^ h2;
}
};
using Vote = std::pair<std::string, std::string>;
using Unordered_map = std::unordered_map<Vote, int, pair_hash>;
int main() {
Unordered_map um;
}
This will work, but not have the best hash-properties†. You might want to have a look at something like boost.hash_combine
for higher quality results when combining the hashes. This is also discussed in greater detail – including the aforementioned solution from boost – in this answer.
For real world use: Boost also provides the function set hash_value
which already provides a hash function for std::pair
, as well as std::tuple
and most standard containers.
†More precisely, it will produce too many collisions. E.g., every symmetric pair will hash to 0 and pairs that differ only by permutation will have the same hash. This is probably fine for your programming exercise, but might seriously hurt performance of real world code.