From: Theodore H. Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 21:21:05 EST
I've looked into the TST thing.
I'm not sure that it is optimal, despite how popular they are!
Look at this, if I add "1", "2","3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9" to a
TST, they will all be in a line, in the tree. All will be reference via
the "high" node.
So, to find "9", I have to read through 9 items!
Now, I'm not sure if this is a bad thing. It's just that compared to a
binary search on an array, in this example, a TST does more work.
When reading in data, that has already been sorted, I think this could
be a problem. It's fine for randomly ordered data, but with sorted
data... I can't tell how much of a problem it could be.
This is the kind of structure that punishes neat people. An unexpected
payback for the effort of being neat and ordered.
I'm quite new to this, and so I don't know if there is a good solution
to making the tree's balanced without imposing huge overhead, or if in
practice, this will be a problem.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 22:28:14 EST