home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.programming
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!johnm
- From: johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
- Subject: Re: Balanced Trees (Re: Why Are Red-Black Trees Obscure?)
- Message-ID: <1992Aug28.005849.28502@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
- Sender: nntp@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU (NNTP Poster)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cory
- Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
- References: <1992Aug27.115551.7958@daimi.aau.dk> <PSU.92Aug27104235@ptero.cs.duke.edu> <1992Aug27.215924.24525@reed.edu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:58:49 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <1992Aug27.215924.24525@reed.edu> orpheus@reed.edu (P. Hawthorne) writes:
- > psu@cs.duke.edu (Peter Su) laments:
- >: All of the following are easier than AVL trees: splay trees, red-black
- >: trees, skip-lists, randomized binary trees, etc. Why do people insist on
- >: teaching AVL trees?
- [...]
- > Maybe it's because AVL trees are always watching out for and correcting
- >imbalance. The structures you mention are probabilistic solutions, not hard
- >and fast guarantees. If you are particularly neurotic about computational
- >cost and the cost of key compares outweighs the cost of path bookkeeping
- >and tree rotations, I could see using AVL trees rather than the many "sure
- >thing" alternatives. Plus, they're exotic Cold War souvenirs!
-
- Nope. AVL, splay and red-black trees are *not* probabilistic. Skip-lists
- are probabilistic.
-
- [...]
- > Has anyone used frequency of node access data to bias the tree balancing
- >rotation operations toward shorter paths?
- [...]
-
- That's what 'splaying' is for.
-
- John D. Mitchell
- johnm@cory.Berkeley.EDU
-
-
-