Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For height-balanced binary trees, the height is defined to be logarithmic () in the number of items. This is the case for many binary search trees, such as AVL trees and red–black trees . Splay trees and treaps are self-balancing but not height-balanced, as their height is not guaranteed to be logarithmic in the number of items.
In computer science, an optimal binary search tree (Optimal BST), sometimes called a weight-balanced binary tree, [1] is a binary search tree which provides the smallest possible search time (or expected search time) for a given sequence of accesses (or access probabilities). Optimal BSTs are generally divided into two types: static and dynamic.
A balanced binary tree is a binary tree structure in which the left and right subtrees of every node differ in height (the number of edges from the top-most node to the farthest node in a subtree) by no more than 1 (or the skew is no greater than 1). [22]
Fig. 1: A binary search tree of size 9 and depth 3, with 8 at the root. In computer science, a binary search tree (BST), also called an ordered or sorted binary tree, is a rooted binary tree data structure with the key of each internal node being greater than all the keys in the respective node's left subtree and less than the ones in its right subtree.
The AVL tree is named after its two Soviet inventors, Georgy Adelson-Velsky and Evgenii Landis, who published it in their 1962 paper "An algorithm for the organization of information". [2] It is the first self-balancing binary search tree data structure to be invented. [3]
This framework aims at designing highly-parallelized algorithms for various balanced binary search trees. The algorithmic framework is based on a single operation join . [ 1 ] Under this framework, the join operation captures all balancing criteria of different balancing schemes, and all other functions join have generic implementation across ...
Skip lists are a probabilistic data structure that seem likely to supplant balanced trees as the implementation method of choice for many applications. Skip list algorithms have the same asymptotic expected time bounds as balanced trees and are simpler, faster and use less space. —
Instead of the small incremental rebalancing operations used by most balanced tree algorithms, scapegoat trees rarely but expensively choose a "scapegoat" and completely rebuilds the subtree rooted at the scapegoat into a complete binary tree. Thus, scapegoat trees have () worst-case update performance.