Sets are a very important and useful abstraction. In Lecture 8 we saw various ways to implement an abstract data type for sets. None of these implementations were state-of-the-art. Now that we're good at determining asymptotic running time, it's time to see an implementation of sets that is asymptotically more efficient and better in practice for most applications of interest.
For simplicity, we will implement sets of integers. We can easily
generalize the code to manipulate elements of an arbitrary type 'a
by passing around a comparison function cmp: 'a*'a -> order.
The signature that we will work with is a little different from that in Lecture 8:
signature INTSET = sig (* a "set" is a set of integers: e.g., {1,-11,0}, {}, and {1001}*) type set (* empty is the empty set *) val empty : set (* add(x,s) is {x} union s. *) val add: int*set -> set (* union is set union. *) val union: set*set -> set (* contains(x,s) is whether x is a member of s *) val contains: int*set -> bool (* size(s) is the number of elements in s *) val size: set->int (* fold over the elements of the set *) val fold: ((int * 'b)->'b) -> 'b -> set -> 'b end
This differs from our earlier signature by replacing single with
add. This change makes sense because adding a single element is a
common use that often can be implemented more efficiently than general union. We
can use add to implement union as follows, adding the elements from s2 into s1 one at a time:
fun union(s1, s2) = fold add s1 s2
Our most efficient implementation of sets was as a list of integers with no repetition. What is the asymptotic running time of the operations, on a list of length n?
add? O(n), because we have
to check the entire list to make sure the element is not already in it.
(This means that set union will take O(n2)
time—not good!)
contains? O(n) in the worst case, because we
might have to scan down the entire list when the element is not
there.So it's not very efficient. Is there a better way to implement a set than a sorted list? By "better" we mean having asymptotically faster operations. For implementing very small sets, the implementations we saw earlier might be the right choice because they are simple. For larger sets, binary search trees are a better implementation.
type value = int datatype btree = Empty | Node of {value: value, left:btree, right:btree} type set = btree
A binary search tree is a binary tree with the following representation invariant:
For
any node n, every node in n.left has a value less than
that of n, and every node in n.right has a value more
than that of n.
Given such a tree, how do you perform a lookup operation? Start from the root, and at every node, if the value of the node is what you are looking for, you are done; otherwise, recursively look up in the left or right subtree depending on the value stored at the node. In code:
fun contains (n:int, t:btree): bool = (case t of Empty => false | Node {value,left,right} => (case Int.compare (value,n) of EQUAL => true | GREATER => contains (n,left) | LESSER => contains (n,right)))
Addition is similar: you perform a lookup until you find the empty node that should contain the value. In code:
fun add (n:int, t:btree):btree = (case t of Empty => Node {value=n, left=Empty, right=Empty} | Node {value,left,right} => (case Int.compare (value,n) of EQUAL => t | GREATER => Node {value=value, left=add (n,left), right=right} | LESSER => Node {value=value, left=left, right=add (n,right)}))
What is the running time of those operations? Since add is just a lookup
with an extra node creation, we focus on the lookup operation. Clearly, an
analysis of the code shows that add is O(height
of the tree). What's the worst-case height of a tree? Clearly, a tree of n
nodes all in a single long branch (imagine adding the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
in order into a binary search tree). So the worst-case running time of lookup is
still O(n) (for n
the number of nodes in the tree).
What is a good shape for a tree that would allow for fast lookup? A balanced, "bushy" tree; for example:
^ 50
| / \
| 25 75
height=3 | / \ / \
| 10 30 60 90
| / \ / \ / \ / \
V 4 12 27 40 55 65 80 99
If a tree with n nodes is kept balanced, its height is O(lg n), which leads to a lookup operation running in time O(lg n).
How can we keep a tree balanced? Many techniques involve adding an element just like in a normal binary search tree, followed by some kind of tree surgery to rebalance the tree. For example:
The idea is to strengthen the rep invariants of the binary search tree so that trees are always approximately balanced. To help enforce the invariants, we color each node of the tree either red or black:
datatype color = Red | Black datatype rbtree = Empty | Node of {color: color, value: int, left:rbtree, right:rbtree} type set = rbtree
Here are the new conditions we add to the binary search tree rep invariant:
Note that empty nodes are considered always to be black. If a tree satisfies these two conditions, it must also be the case that every subtree of the tree also satisfies the conditions. If a subtree violated either of the conditions, the whole tree would also.
With these invariants, the longest possible path from the root to an empty node would alternately contain red and black nodes; therefore it is at most twice as long as the shortest possible path, which only contains black nodes. If n is the number of nodes in the tree, the path cannot have a length greater than 2 lg n, which is O(lg n). Therefore, the tree has height O(lg n) and the operations are all as asymptotically efficient as we could expect.
How do we check for membership in red-black trees? Exactly the same way as for general binary trees:
fun contains (n: int, t:rbtree): bool = (case t of Empty => false | Node {value,left,right,...} => (case Int.compare (value, n) of EQUAL => true | GREATER => contains (n,left) | LESSER => contains (n,right)))
More interesting is the add operation. We add by replacing
the empty node that a standard add into a binary
search tree would. We also color the new node red to ensure that
invariant #2 is preserved. However, we may destroy invariant #1 in doing so, by
producing two red nodes, one the parent of the other. The next figure shows all
the possible cases that may arise:
1 2 3 4Bz Bz Bx Bx / \ / \ / \ / \ Ry d Rx d a Rz a Ry / \ / \ / \ / \ Rx c a Ry Ry d b Rz / \ / \ / \ / \ a b b c b c c d
Notice that in each of these trees, the values of the nodes in a,b,c,d must have the same relative ordering with respect to x, y, and z: a<x<b<y<c<z<d. Therefore, we can perform a local tree rotation to restore the invariant locally, while possibly breaking invariant 1 one level up in the tree:
Ry
/ \
Bx Bz
/ \ / \
a b c d
By performing a rebalance of the tree at that level, and all the levels above, we can do tree surgery to locally enforce invariant #1. In the end, we may end up with two red nodes, one of them the root and the other the child of the root; this we can easily correct by coloring the root black. The SML code (which really shows the power of pattern matching!) is as follows:
fun add (n:int, t:rbtree): rbtree = let (* Definition: a tree t satisfies the "reconstruction invariant" if it is * black and satisfies the rep invariant, or if it is red and its children * satisfy the rep invariant and have the same black height. *) (* makeBlack(t) is a tree that satisfies the rep invariant. Requires: t satisfies the reconstruction invariant Algorithm: Make a tree identical to t but with a black root. *) fun makeBlack (t:rbtree): rbtree = case t of Empty => Empty | Node {color,value,left,right} => Node {color=Black, value=value, left=left, right=right} (* Construct the result of a red-black tree rotation. *) fun rotate(x: value, y: value, z: value, a: rbtree, b: rbtree, c:rbtree, d: rbtree): rbtree = Node {color=Red, value=y, left= Node {color=Black, value=x, left=a, right=b}, right=Node {color=Black, value=z, left=c, right=d}} (* balance(t) is a tree that satisfies the reconstruction invariant and * contains all the same values as t. * Requires: one of the children of t satisfies the rep invariant and * the other satisfies the reconstruction invariant. Both children * have the same black height. *) fun balance (t:rbtree): rbtree = case t of (*1*) Node {color=Black, value=z, left= Node {color=Red, value=y, left=Node {color=Red, value=x, left=a, right=b}, right=c}, right=d} => rotate(x,y,z,a,b,c,d) | (*2*) Node {color=Black, value=z, left=Node {color=Red, value=x, left=a, right=Node {color=Red, value=y, left=b, right=c}}, right=d} => rotate(x,y,z,a,b,c,d) | (*3*) Node {color=Black, value=x, left=a, right=Node {color=Red, value=z, left=Node {color=Red, value=y, left=b, right=c}, right=d}} => rotate(x,y,z,a,b,c,d) | (*4*) Node {color=Black, value=x, left=a, right=Node {color=Red, value=y, left=b, right=Node {color=Red, value=z, left=c, right=d}}} => rotate(x,y,z,a,b,c,d) | _ => t (* Add x into t, returning a tree that satisfies the reconstruction invariant. *) fun walk (t:rbtree):rbtree = case t of Empty => Node {color=Red, value=n, left=Empty, right=Empty} | Node {color,value,left,right} => (case Int.compare (value,n) of EQUAL => t | GREATER => balance (Node {color=color, value=value, left=walk left, right=right}) | LESSER => balance (Node {color=color, value=value, left=left, right=walk right})) in makeBlack (walk (t)) end
This code walks back up the tree from the point of insertion fixing the
invariants at every level. At red nodes we don't try to fix the invariant; we
let the recursive walk go back until a black node is found. When the walk
reaches the top the color of the root node is restored to black, which is needed
if balance rotates the root.
Deletion of elements from a red-black tree is also possible, but requires the consideration of many more cases.
An important property of any balanced search tree, red-black trees included, is that it can be used to implement an ordered set easily. This is a set that keeps its elements in some sorted order. Ordered sets generally provide operations for finding the minimum and maximum elements of the set, for iterating over all the elements between two elements, and for extracting ordered subsets of the elements between a range.
CS312 © 2003 Cornell University Computer Science |