# Amortized Analysis of Two-List Queues

The implemention of queues with two lists was in a way more efficient than the implementation with just one list, because it managed to achieve a constant time enqueue operation. But, that came at the tradeoff of making the dequeue operation sometimes take more than constant time: whenever the front became empty, the back had to be reversed, which required an additional linear-time operation.

As we observed then, the reversal is relatively rare. It happens only when the front gets exhausted. Amortized analysis gives us a way to account for that. We can actually show that the dequeue operation is amortized constant time.

To keep the analysis simple at first, let's assume the queue starts off with exactly one element 1 already enqueued, and that we do three enqueue operations of 2, 3, then 4, followed by a single dequeue. The single initial element had to be in the front of the queue. All three enqueue operations will cons an element onto the back. So just before the dequeue, the queue looks like:

{front = ; back = [4; 3; 2]}


and after the dequeue:

{front = [2; 3; 4]; back = []}


It required

• 3 cons operations to do the 3 enqueues, and
• another 3 cons operations to finish the dequeue by reversing the list.

That's a total of 6 cons operations to do the 4 enqueue and dequeue operations. The average cost is therefore 1.5 cons operations per queue operation. There were other pattern matching operations and record constructions, but those all took only constant time, so we'll ignore them.

What about a more complicated situation, where there are enqueues and dequeues interspersed with one another? Trying to take averages over the series is going to be tricky to analyze. But, inspired by our analysis of hash tables, suppose we pretend that the cost of each enqueue is twice its actual cost, as measured in cons operations? Then at the time an element is enqueued, we could "prepay" the later cost that will be incurred when that element is cons'd onto the reversed list.

The enqueue operation is still constant time, because even though we're now pretending its cost is 2 instead of 1, it's still the case that 2 is a constant. And the dequeue operation is amortized constant time:

• If dequeue doesn't need to reverse the back, it really does just constant work, and

• If dequeue does need to reverse a back list with $n$ elements, it already has $n$ units of work "saved up" from each of the enqueues of those $n$ elements.

So if we just pretend each enqueue costs twice its normal price, every operation in a sequence is amortized constant time. Is this just a bookkeeping trick? Absolutely. But it also reveals the deeper truth that on average we get constant-time performance, even though some operations might rarely have worst-case linear-time performance.