[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] tree balancing in Set and Map |
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, David Monniaux wrote: > I wonder about something: the first balanced tree data structure described in > algorithmics courses is generally the AVL tree, where the heights of the > subtrees differ by at most 1. In Caml's implementation, they are allowed to > differ by at most 2. Heh. I asked this question myself a couple of months back. The response was basically that yes, it was a delibert decision- by allowing heights to differ by more, this limits the amount of rebalancing that is needed, making inserts faster. Testing the two different approachs showed that the increase in speed for inserts was enough to justify the slight slowing of finds. A comment to this effect in the code might not be a bad idea... Brian