Advertisement

General Splay: A Basic Theory and Calculus

  • G. F. Georgakopoulos
  • D. J. McClurkin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1741)

Abstract

For storage and retrieval applications where access frequencies are biased, uniformly-balanced search trees may be suboptimal. Splay trees address this issue, providing a means for searching which is statically optimum and conjectured to be dynamically optimum. Subramanian explored the reasons for their success, expressing local transformations as templates and giving sufficient criteria for a template family to exhibit amortized O(logN) performance. We present a different formulation of the potential function, based on progress factors along edges. Its decomposition w.r.t. a template enables us to relax all of Subramanian’s conditions. Moreover it illustrates the reasons why template-based self-adjustment schemes work, and provides a straightforward way of evaluating the efficiency of such schemes.

Keywords

Basic Theory Search Tree Internal Node Current Node Internal Edge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, B., Munro, J. I., “Self Organizing Binary Search Trees”, J. of the A.C.M. 25(4) (1978), 526–535.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adel’son-Vel’ski, G. M., Landis, E. M., “An Algorithm for the Organization of Information”, Soviet Mathematics Doklady 3 (1962), 1259–1263.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayer, R., McCreight, E., “Organization and Maintenance of Large Ordered Indices”, Acta Informatica 1(3) (1972), 173–189.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balasubramanian, R., Raman, V., “Path Balance Heuristic for Self-Adjusting Binary Search Trees”, Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science 15 (1995), 338–348.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bent, S. W., Sleator, D. D., Tarjan, R. E., “Biased Search Trees”, J. on Computing 14(3) (1985), 545–568.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grinberg, D., Rajagopalan, S., Venkatesan, R., Wei, V. K., “Splay Trees for Data Compression”, Proc. 6th Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (1995), 522–530.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hu, T. C., Tucher, A. C., “Optimal Computer Search Trees and Variable-Length Alphabetic Codes”, J. of Applied Mathematics 21(4) (1971), 514–532.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knuth, D. E., “Optimum Binary Search Trees”, Acta Informatica 1(1) (1971), 14–25.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Overmars, M. H., “The Design of Dynamic Data Structures”, Lecture Notes on Computer Science 156, Springer Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sherk, M., “Self Adjusting k-ary Search Trees”, J. of Algorithms 19(1) (1995), 25–44.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sleator, D. D., Tarjan, R. E., “Self Adjusting Binary Search Trees”, J. of the A.C.M. 32(3) (1985), 652–686.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sleator, D. D., Tarjan, R. E., “Amortized Efficiency of List Updates and Paging Rules”, C. of the A.C.M. 28(2) (1985), 202–208.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Subramanian, A., “An Explanation of Splaying”, J. of Algorithms 20(3) (1996), 512–525.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sundar, R., “Twists, Turns, Cascades, Dequeue Conjecture and Scanning Theorem”, 30th FOCS (1989), 555–559.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tarjan, R. E., “Amortized Computational Complexity”, J. of Applied and Discrete Mathematics 6(2) (1985), 306–318.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. F. Georgakopoulos
    • 1
  • D. J. McClurkin
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteHeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations