Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #3332

Re: AVL versus Red-Black Trees

Show all headers | View raw

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:

> AVL trees and Red-Black Trees are both types of self-balancing binary
> search trees.  AVL trees were developed in the early 1960's by two
> Russians. Red-Black trees were developed in the 1970's.  My question
> is this:
>
> Since an AVL tree actually keeps the tree in a little better balance
> than the Red-Black tree, and since the AVL code is *simpler* than the
> Red-Black code... why do we need the Red-Black tree at all???  Why
> *not* use the AVL tree in all such circumstances???

I wrote a paper about this: http://benpfaff.org/papers/libavl.pdf

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

AVL versus Red-Black Trees "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2013-05-15 22:33 -0500
  Re: AVL versus Red-Black Trees "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-05-16 05:58 +0100
  Re: AVL versus Red-Black Trees Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-05-16 02:42 -0500
  Re: AVL versus Red-Black Trees Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2013-05-18 15:41 -0700
    Re: AVL versus Red-Black Trees "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-05-20 08:25 +0100

csiph-web