When it comes to working with the ECS architectural pattern, it’s common to destroy entities sooner or later. In this case, it’s likely that entity identifiers are recycled for several reasons, then returned the next time a new entity is created.

Unfortunately, most of the time this part is poorly designed and results in a waste of memory and unwanted allocations.

I want to explain why you don’t need to store aside deleted entities and how we can avoid to consume memory for them. This is also the same technique I’ve used in EnTT .

If you haven’t done it yet, read the previous parts of the series before to continue. It will help to fully understand this one.

Introduction

No matter what’s your implementation for component based design, recycling entities is quite useful in all cases. Sometimes it’s even required to avoid problems. At least it seems to be so with the most known models I ran across in my experience.

Recycling is useful

Recycling entities is useful because it gives us a way to find if a known instance is still alive, though it isn’t the only way to do that. There exist implementations where an entity is considered deleted or dead when it has no more components assigned. However, as we will see in the next section, this can quickly lead to problems that are instead avoided if the entity is recycled.

How do we recycle an entity then? Quite easy.

Let’s consider 32bit identifiers for entities. We can split them in two parts (for the sake of simplicity 16bit each), then assign the first part to the actual entity and the second part to the version or generation or whatever is the name you want to use for that:

Identifiers become thus opaque values to return to the users and from which we can extract both the parts when received.

When a new entity is created, we just look if there exists an identifier that has been previously destroyed to return. Otherwise, we create a new identifier with the right value for the entity and with the version set to 0.

On the other hand, when an entity is destroyed we can increase its version and keep track of it for later uses.

This has the benefit that users can easily store aside identifiers and know at any time if they are still valid or if the entities to which they refer had been deleted in the meantime. If the version of the stored identifier differs from the current one, it means that the entity has been recycled.

Recycling is required

The major implementations of an ECS of which I’m aware are:

Component matrix (as an example entityx ): here entities are used to index the matrix itself. Not recycling them would be a huge waste of memory.

Sparse sets (as as an example EnTT ): here entities are put in sparse arrays to allow fast random access aside perfect SoA. Not recycling them would be a huge waste of memory (this can be mitigated by paginating the sparse array but still it’s not that convenient).

Archetypes (as an example decs ): here entities are stored aside with a direct pointer to the archetype to which they belong. Recycling them permits to reduce the memory usage for the vector of entities.

Moreover, if we split our identifiers in two parts, the number of entities we can generate is limited. If we consider 32bit identifiers and use only 16bit for the entity, it’s likely that we’ll go out of identifiers after a while if we don’t recycle them. We can mitigate the problem by using 20bit for the entity, but still it’s a matter of time.

Another option is that of using 64bit identifiers but they occupy twice the space of their counterparts for no real benefits but for the fact that probably we have no longer to recycle them. We can also combine bigger identifiers with a version-less model and decide that an entity is destroyed when it is assigned no components. Now we have to find a way to make it explicit and it’s a bit counterintuitive to me to be honest. It sounds odd and has its own can of problems anyway.

From my point of view, smaller identifiers are worth it if all what I’ve to do is to find a smart way to recycle them. Memory occupancy isn’t my favorite pet and the drawbacks of not recycling entities are annoying, so why shouldn’t I care of it?

The entity and the version

So, I’ve decided to recycle my identifiers, you convinced me. What should I do now?

The first approach is the most obvious one. I’ve used it for long time in EnTT and I must say that it worked pretty well.

Just use two vectors and that’s all:

std::vector<std::uint32_t> entities; std::vector<std::uint32_t> destroyed;

Its problem is that it occupies (not so much) memory for literally nothing and pulls in extra allocations we can avoid. In other terms, if we generate N entities, then destroy all the identifiers, it occupies twice the space required for them because of how an std::vector works (and because it’s likely we are going to reuse them soon, so we don’t want to shrink the entities vector).

Moreover, it could incurr in extra cache misses during some operations. However, it’s biggest problem is that you cannot say at a first glance if an entity has been destroyed and not recycled yet. You’ve either to keep the two instances of an identifier in sync or to search through the destroyed vector.

On the other hand, it’s straightforward to implement and to work with, that are usually good features.

As a side note, EnTT used to keep in sync the instances of the indentifiers in the two vectors. It’s not that difficult, but it has a cost that is better to avoid.

A variant would be that of using something like this:

std::vector<std::pair<std::uint32_t, bool>> entities;

It consumes less memory and we know immediately if an entity is still alive or not. In this case, the problem is that we have no clue about what’s the next entity to recycle and we have to search it somehow. A side data structure to keep track of deleted entities would mitigate the problem, but it defeats a bit the purpose of the bool value and duplicates the information in different places.

So far, so good. What’s the alternative then?

The other way around is to get rid of the second vector and to construct an implicit list of destroyed entities directly within entities . This way we can know immediately if an entity has been destroyed (because it belongs to the list, but keep calm and continue to read to know why this is true), we avoid allocations and reduce memory usage, plus another set of benefits I’ll mention below.

It sounds pretty good. This is what we need for that:

std::vector<std::uint32_t> entities; std::size_t available{}; std::uint32_t next{};

Where:

entities is the list of entities, both alive and dead ones.

is the list of entities, both alive and dead ones. available indicates how many entities have been destroyed so far and not recycled yet.

indicates how many entities have been destroyed so far and not recycled yet. next tells us what’s the next entity to recycle.

If you take a closer look at it, you can spot a common pattern. I’ve named it next for the sake of clarity, but it’s nothing more than the head of the implicit list we are going to construct. If you have ever worked with linked lists in C/C++, you know almost certainly what I’m speaking about.

From explicit to implicit

Defining an implicit list is quite simple indeed. It’s just a matter of shifting the list of deleted entities back of a position.

The next variable contains the first identifier to recycle. We exploit the fact that the entity (that is, the identifier masked to get rid of the version) represents also its position within the vector of entities. At the position pointed out by the identifier stored in next we can put then the next entity to recycle and so on, until the end of the implicit list. The last element of the list can contain whatever you want, its value isn’t going to be used any time soon (thanks to available ).

In case an entity is destroyed, we increase its version and swap the identifier with next . This way it’s automatically added to the list of deleted entities:

Do not forget to increase available too, otherwise you’ve to walk through the whole list of deleted entities to know how many identifiers have been deleted so far.

This is particularly useful to check if there are entities still in use. When available is equal to the size of entities , it means that the container is empty.

To recycle an entity, we can swap next with the value contained at the position pointed by the identifier stored in next , then return the latter. Also in this case, do not forget to decrease available to avoid problems.

Increase the version and swap to destroy, swap and return to recycle. This is trivial and pretty cheap. Definitely something that is worth it if you consider the benefits. However, unfortunately this solution has also a huge problem that isn’t obvious at a first glance.

As I mentioned above, we can use the version to know if an entity has been destroyed. However, in this case, the position associated with an identifier no longer contains it if it’s destroyed and has not been recycled yet. Even worse, if we consider how the implicit list works, we know that the identifier is stored in the previous node of the list that isn’t a double linked one. Therefore, we have no way to retrieve it easily.

Fortunately, there exists a solution also for this problem.

Split entity and version

So far, to make an identifier part of the implicit list of destroyed entities or to recycle it, we simply updated its version and swapped it with the value contained in next .

However, what is really needed to create the list isn’t the whole identifier. In fact, the entity part is more than enough because that’s what gives us the position of the identifier itself within entities . Therefore, we can leave the version in its original position, where we need to have it at the end of the day. In other terms, we can exploit the fact that the version isn’t required to create the implicit list and shift only the entity part of the identifiers, not the whole value.

Note that, in the image above, the version is that associated with the entity if not explicitly specified. As an example, E0 can also be read as E0|V0 .

This requires you to work with bitwise operations, do some shifts and make your hands dirty with a couple of bitmasks, but solves the problem of having always the version where we search it.

What we obtain is:

If an entity is still alive, the identifier stored in the position pointed by the entity is the right one, that is a 32bit value composed by the entity itself and its version.

If an entity has been destroyed, the identifier stored in the position pointed by the entity is a composed value that contains the version associated with the entity itself and the value of the next entity in the implicit list of destroyed entities.

If it seems complicated, I can assure you that it is not (but for the first time you run across it probably). On the other side, it’s cheap and all the operations are trivial.

For the sake of curiosity, this is more or less how EnTT works under the hood. The registry class doesn’t contain a list of destroyed entities. Instead, it constructs an implicit list directly within the list of entities. It makes also use of these mixed identifiers generated as a result of shifting only the entity part of the identifiers.

You can have a look at the code of the registry class to see an actual implementation of this concepts.

Let me know that it helped

I hope you enjoyed what you’ve read so far.

If you liked this post and want to say thanks, consider to star the GitHub project that hosts this blog. It’s the only way you have to let me know that you appreciate my work.

Thanks.