Is it more efficient to copy a vector by reserving and copying, or by creating and swapping?

Admin 1
Viewed 413997

I am trying to efficiently make a copy of a vector. I see two possible approaches:

std::vector<int> copyVecFast1(const std::vector<int>& original)
{
  std::vector<int> newVec;
  newVec.reserve(original.size());
  std::copy(original.begin(), original.end(), std::back_inserter(newVec));
  return newVec;
}

std::vector<int> copyVecFast2(std::vector<int>& original)
{
  std::vector<int> newVec;
  newVec.swap(original);
  return newVec;
}

Which of these is preferred, and why? I am looking for the most efficient solution that will avoid unnecessary copying.

vector stl algorithm c++
6 Answers

They aren't the same though, are they? One is a copy, the other is a swap. Hence the function names.

My favourite is:

a = b;

Where a and b are vectors.

Earwicker_274230

Your second example does not work if you send the argument by reference. Did you mean

void copyVecFast(vec<int> original) // no reference
{

  vector<int> new_;
  new_.swap(original); 
}

That would work, but an easier way is 

vector<int> new_(original);
user_726310

This is another valid way to make a copy of a vector, just use its constructor:

std::vector<int> newvector(oldvector);

This is even simpler than using std::copy to walk the entire vector from start to finish to std::back_insert them into the new vector.

That being said, your .swap() one is not a copy, instead it swaps the two vectors. You would modify the original to not contain anything anymore! Which is not a copy.

user_139860

you should not use swap to copy vectors, it would change the "original" vector.

pass the original as a parameter to the new instead.

user_56610
Related