AVL versus Red-Black Trees

From	"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	AVL versus Red-Black Trees
Date	2013-05-15 22:33 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<kn1jqt$qab$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

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???

--
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — 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