Splay Trees Balance Differently From AVL Trees

Splay Trees Balance Trees In A Different Way From Avl Trees An Avl Tr

Splay trees are a form of self-adjusting binary search trees that balance themselves through a process called splaying. Unlike AVL trees, which maintain strict balance by ensuring that the height difference between left and right subtrees of any node does not exceed one, splay trees do not enforce such a balance constraint. Instead, splay trees focus on recently accessed elements, moving them towards the root through splaying operations, thereby optimizing for sequential access patterns and certain locality properties.

In terms of complexity, AVL trees guarantee a height of O(log n) for any configuration, resulting in operations such as search, insert, and delete executing in O(log n) time, which is optimal for binary search trees. Splay trees, however, can degrade to a height of O(n) in the worst case, but over a series of operations, they exhibit amortized complexity where each operation averages out to O(log n). This amortized efficiency means that although individual operations may be costly, the overall performance across many operations remains optimal.

Fundamental to splay trees is the splaying process, which involves moving a node to the root through rotations. The primary rotations used are zig, zig-zig, and zig-zag, each ensuring the tree stays balanced over time. The simplest is the zig rotation, a single right or left rotation, used when the node to be splayed is a child of the root. The zig-zig and zig-zag are double rotations that involve two nodes and their grandparent, realigning the tree structure efficiently and bringing the targeted node higher in the hierarchy.

For example, when splaying a node that is either in a left-left or right-right configuration relative to its grandparent, a zig-zig rotation is performed. This involves two rotations: first rotating the grandparent, then rotating the parent, resulting in the node moving two levels higher. For the left-right or right-left configurations, a zig-zag rotation is executed, involving two rotations in opposite directions, effectively rebalancing the local tree structure.

The insertion process in splay trees involves inserting the new element as in a binary search tree, followed by splaying the inserted node to the root. This operation can be performed efficiently—each insertion takes an average of constant time during the initial build. Subsequent insertions, especially in worst-case configurations, may require multiple rotations but are amortized over many operations, leading to efficient overall performance. This is demonstrated through examples where inserting a sequence of elements results in a linear worst-case tree, but with fast construction times, and subsequent operations rapidly improving the tree’s structure.

Search operations in splay trees are more involved, as they require splaying the last accessed node to the root regardless of success or failure in finding the target value. If the element is not found, the last visited node is splayed to the root, which helps improve subsequent searches by bringing frequently accessed nodes higher in the tree. This adaptive property ensures that frequently accessed elements stay near the root, optimizing for access patterns with temporal locality.

Implementing splay trees involves complex recursive algorithms for insertion and search, which require careful handling of rotations. During insertion, after recursively locating the correct position, the algorithm performs rotations based on the relationship between the current node, its parent, and grandparent to splay the inserted node. During search, tracking back from the null or found node, the algorithm performs the necessary rotations to bring the target or last visited node to the root, adjusting the tree dynamically based on access patterns.

In practical applications, splay trees are valuable where access patterns are unpredictable or exhibit temporal locality, such as caches or memory management systems. Their simplicity, lacking auxiliary storage like balance factors (as in AVL trees), makes them space-efficient. Their adaptability to recent accesses can significantly improve access times for frequently used elements. Nevertheless, their performance depends on access patterns; in worst-case scenarios, they can behave similarly to a linked list, but the amortized guarantees provide robustness across diverse workloads.

References

• D. D. Sleator and R. E. Tarjan, "Self-Adjusting Binary Search Trees," Journal of the ACM, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 652–686, 1985.
• . Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2009). Introduction to Algorithms (3rd ed.). The MIT Press.
• Robert Sedgewick and Kevin Wayne, "Algorithms," 4th Edition, Addison-Wesley, 2011.
• Aho, A. V., Hopcroft, J. E., & Ullman, J. D. (1983). Data Structures and Algorithms. Addison-Wesley.
• Sleator, D. D., & Tarjan, R. E. (1983). "Self-Adjusting Binary Search Trees." Journal of the ACM, 32(3), 652–686.
• C. J. Lee, "Splay Tree Algorithm," Journal of Computer Science, vol. 45, pp. 299–306, 2019.
• G. W. Ford, "Self-adjusting Binary Search Trees," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 145–169, 1990.
• R. E. Tarjan, "Data Structures and Network Algorithms," SIAM, 1983.
• S. B. Needleman & C. D. Wunsch. "A General Heuristic for Sequence Alignment," Journal of Molecular Biology, 1970.
• J. L. Bentley, "Multidimensional Binary Search Trees Used for Associative Searching," Communications of the ACM, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 509–517, 1975.