An AVL tree is an ordered data structure that maintains O(log n) lookup, insertion, and removal. In this post, I explain them, give an implementation, draw an example (with Graphviz), and suggest some extensions and uses.
-------
AVL trees are augmented binary search trees: each node, in addition to having a datum and left and right branches, contains the depth of the subtree that it represents. This depth is equal to 1 + max(depth(left branch),depth(right branch)); it's useful for keeping the tree balanced.
Motivation: We start by considering a binary search tree. If this tree is balanced--all the leaves are at the same depth, or within 1 of the same depth--then the depth of the tree with n elements is between log_2(n) and 1+log_2(n). Which means that lookups take O(log n) time, which is good. And we can insert an element in log n time, too, by looking in the tree for where that element would be, and adding it to the bottom. However, this may unbalance the tree; if our tree has the numbers from 1 to 15, and we insert the numbers -1 through -20, then the tree becomes massively unbalanced on the left side and we no longer have O(log n) anything.
The next step is to say, hmm, well, perhaps we could rebalance the tree when we insert something. One way to do that is to construct a new balanced tree from the elements of the old one, plus the new element; this works, but it takes O(n) time for every insertion, which is really bad.
Now, someone at some point had the genius idea that maybe you could only perform local rebalancings. If, in the below case, we've just inserted something into the subtree A, and A has depth x+1, C depth x, and E depth x, then B has depth x+2, and this tree isn't balanced. We can shift around a couple of nodes, as illustrated, and now the two branches of the main tree both have depth x+1, so we're happy.
D B
B E --> A D
A C C E
Doing this requires knowing the depth at each node. In general, computing the depth of a binary tree means following every branch all the way to the bottom--i.e. it is O(n).[1] However, if every node contains its depth, then it's an instant lookup. This little rebalancing operation was O(2), so the whole insertion took O(log n).
This looks like a promising approach, if we can get it to work right. If you do some fooling around and thinking, you may figure out that we can require all nodes to be balanced (so that [depth(left) - depth(right)] = 1, 0, or -1), and enforce this by rebalancing from the bottom up every time we insert something. And note that if the maximum difference between left and right branches is 1, then we can prove by induction that the minimum number of elements of an AVL tree with depth n is Fibonacci of something (specifically Fib(n+2)-1), which gives O(log_phi(n)) as an upper bound on the depth of an AVL tree with n elements.
------
Implementation. An AVL node contains a datum, a left and a right branch, and a depth.[2] I'll use nil as an empty AVL node.
(def node (d x y)
(obj dt d ;datum, left, right, depth
lf x
rt y
dp (inc:max depth.x depth.y)))
(def depth (node)
(if node
node!dp
0))
Using the function "node", we can construct AVL trees, as in (node 2 (node 1 nil nil) (node 3 nil nil)). Now we need to handle rebalancing. We could do this by modifying nodes, but I find it easier to just construct new ones.[3]
; rebalancing
;
; D B
; B E --> A D
; A C 1 2 C E
; 1 2
;
; ;in top example, 1,2,C,E all have depth x
; ;in bottom, A,1,2,E all have depth x
;
; D C
; B E --> B D
; A C A 1 2 E
; 1 2
;
; (and mirror images)
Whenever [depth(left) - depth(right)] isn't -1, 0, or 1, we need to fix that. An imbalance can only happen as the result of a single insertion or removal; this means the depth mismatch of the two branches can be at most 2; for convenience, let's say the left branch (B) has depth x+2, while the right (E) has depth x. (Consult mirror images for the opposite case.) Since we rebalance things from the bottom up, B and E will, individually, be balanced; in particular, this means that the left and right branches of B (A and C) can have depths of, respectively, x+1 and x; x+1 and x+1; or x and x+1. The top chart illustrates the first case, the bottom chart the third case; the second case can be handled as either the first or the third. (All we need to do is make sure no nodes come out unbalanced.)
So here we go. In the following function, x and y correspond to B and E in the charts, and the node to be constructed corresponds to D.[4]
(def node/r (d x y) ;like node but rebalances
(if (> depth.x (inc depth.y))
(if (> (depth x!lf) (depth x!rt))
(node x!dt x!lf (node d x!rt y))
(node x!rt!dt (node x!dt x!lf x!rt!lf)
(node d x!rt!rt y)))
(> depth.y (inc depth.x))
(if (> (depth y!rt) (depth y!lf))
(node y!dt (node d x y!lf) y!rt)
(node y!lf!dt (node d x y!lf!lf)
(node y!dt y!lf!rt y!rt)))
(node d x y)))
Note that, up to this point, we haven't needed to compare any elements, and in fact I had forgotten I would have to do that. This realization pleases me. However, we do need to compare things when inserting or removing.
(def ainsert (less x tree)
(if no.tree
(node x nil nil)
(less x tree!dt)
(node/r tree!dt
(ainsert less x tree!lf)
tree!rt)
(node/r tree!dt
tree!lf
(ainsert less x tree!rt))))
(def aremove (less test tree)
(if no.tree
(err "aremove: failed to find" x "in" tree)
(test tree)
(amerge tree!lf tree!rt)
(less x tree!dt)
(node/r tree!dt
(aremove less test tree!lf)
tree!rt)
(node/r tree!dt
tree!lf
(aremove less test tree!rt))))
(def amerge (a b) ;not a general merge; assumes [all of a] ≤ [all of b]
(if no.a b
no.b a
(< depth.a depth.b)
(node/r b!dt
(amerge a b!lf)
b!rt)
(node/r a!dt
a!lf
(amerge a!rt b))))
-------
Time for a pretty picture. Here's what an AVL tree looks like when we insert 10 random numbers followed by 21 consecutive large numbers. I drew it with Graphviz, which is some pretty snazzy (and open source) graph-drawing software.
(click to enlarge)
Code:
arc> (= u nil)
nil
arc> (repeat 10 (= u (ainsert < rand.100 u)))
nil
arc> (for i 200 220 (= u (ainsert < i u)))
nil
arc> ashow.u
#<thread: ashow>
(def agviz (tree)
(pr "digraph g {")
(when tree
(pr "node [shape = record,height=.1];")
(xloop (tree tree name "node")
(pr name "[label = \"{" tree!dt "|depth: " depth.tree "}\"];")
(pr "\"" name "\";")
(with (a (string name "0") b (string name "1"))
(when tree!lf
(pr "\"" name "\":sw -> \"" a "\";")
(next tree!lf a))
(when tree!rt
(pr "\"" name "\":se -> \"" b "\";")
(next tree!rt b)))))
(pr "}"))
; this writes Graphviz code, creates a PNG, and opens it. if "name" is
; unspecified, it deletes these files after you close your PNG viewer.
; uses MacOSX-specific "open -nW" and requires graphviz
(def ashow (tr (o name nil))
(let fname (or name (tmpfile))
(tofile fname agviz.tr)
(thread:system:string
"dot -Tpng " fname " -o " fname ".png && open -nW " fname ".png"
(if no.name
(string " && rm " fname " " fname ".png")))))
-------Uses and extensions.
You can use an AVL tree to implement a priority queue. (Priority queue: sorted queue, supports "insert" and "get and delete first element". In this case, both of these are O(log n).) In fact, this was what originally impelled me to do this. The "insert-sorted" procedure in arc.arc, which I mentioned in footnote [2] [my implementation is different but equivalent], obviously wants to treat sorted lists like they're priority queues, but the insertion is O(n).
I haven't (yet) implemented destructive rebalancing, insertion, or removal. These would take O(log n) time as well, but would generate zero unnecessary garbage (instead of O(log n)). Depending on what you're doing, that difference might be desirable (I'd want it for my priority queue), or it might be unimportant, or you might actually need the side-effect-free version.
You can replace the "datum" slot in each node with "key" and "value" slots, perhaps adding a third "key-hash" slot so you can sort diverse or compound keys. This might be useful for, say, string interning, or more generally for a hash table substitute. Paul Graham says in the Arc tutorial: "I once thought alists were just a hack, but there are many things you can do with them that you can't do with hash tables, including sort them, build them up incrementally in recursive functions, have several that share the same tail, and preserve old values." Funnily, you can do all of these things with AVL trees (+key +value +key-hash) and do them in O(log n) time, except for one: if you sort them (presumably according to something other than the hash value, which they'd otherwise be sorted by), then lookups will degrade to O(n).
You can add a "count" slot to each node (and update it when inserting/removing/rebalancing), representing the number of elements in the whole subtree. count(nil) = 0, count(x) = count(x!left) + 1 + count(x!right). This would give you O(log n) access to the kth element, O(log n) insertion or deletion at the kth position (if you want it), plus an O(1) "length" function. This seems like a good general-purpose "list", actually--it beats arrays at "insertion or deletion at the kth position", and it beats normal (linked) lists at everything except lookup/insertion/removal at the head. And if we keep it sorted, then a priority queue becomes just a specific way of using it (you only use "insert-sorted" and "access/delete 0th element").
Continuing with the "count" slot, "append" seems it'd be O(log n). "reverse" would be O(n), but if you really wanted it, you could put in an extra slot, a flag that said "Consider this tree reversed"--it'd be trippy, it'd require writing reversed versions of everything--which would handle nested reverse flags--and when, say, you performed the rebalancing in the top chart and B was reversed but E wasn't, then, in the resulting tree, A and C would get "reversed" flags (and they'd switch places) and B would lose its flag... it'd be pretty ridiculous, but I believe it would work perfectly, and reversal would be O(1). It'd be awesome.
You can add a "parent" slot, a pointer to the parent node (probably nil for the root node). This commits you to destructive insertion/removal; since any part of the tree can be reached from any other part, nondestructively adding something would require copying the whole tree. What does +parent buy you? Well, I thought, it lets insertion (and probably removal) run with constant memory: you go to the bottom, insert your element, then, if needed, go up to the parent and update depth/rebalance (and if you do that, check if the parent of that needs updating; if not, terminate). The alternative (which my nondestructive code currently uses, and which destructive code without +parent would use) is to temporarily store all the nodes on the path to the bottom (implicitly, in a call stack). Upon further thought, this might not make much of a difference, because this call stack gets exactly as deep as the tree, which is approximately log_phi(n), which is 43 when n is 1 billion. I don't know, it might be worth it. It could likewise be used for iterating along the tree.
-------
The point is, there's a lot of cool stuff you can do with AVL trees. Some of it is even useful (like the priority queue, and maybe the general-purpose list). It seems there's lots of room for customizing your AVL tree to fit your problem.
A wise man apparently said, "Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are central to programming." That seems to be true here: with every incarnation of AVL trees I've listed above, the ways to manipulate it have seemed clear to me (at least in specification; the implementation may take a bit of thinking).
-------
[1] You might think, "Well, if I keep the tree balanced, then I can just follow one path to the bottom, and that tells me the depth... up to an error of 1. Might that be good enough?" Suppose your left branch has depth 5 (which you correctly compute), and the right has depth 7, but you compute it to be 6, so you don't rebalance it; now your tree is unbalanced, and the next depth calculation could potentially be off by 2. By induction, your tree may become arbitrarily unbalanced.
[2] On an efficiency note: My implementation uses a hash table to represent each node. This was incredibly convenient for me: x!rt!lf is extremely terse, and changing/adding/removing slot names was easy (originally I had each node store the depths of the left and right branches; Wikipedia made me realize this was redundant). However, it consumes more memory (allocating a hash table for each node) and probably more time (doing hash table lookups to access each slot) than it really has to.
One could represent nodes as, e.g., (cons datum (cons left (cons right depth))), or (cons (cons left right) (cons datum depth)); define accessors as (in the second case) (= lf caar rt cdar dt cadr dp cddr); and replace "x!rt!lf" with (lf (rt x)), etc. Or one could use a Racket vector--define (datum node) as (vector-ref node 0), (lf node) as (vector-ref node 1), and so on. Or one could import Racket structs, and maybe add a "struct?" case for "ar-apply" in ac.scm so you can still use the x!rt!lf syntax. All of these are likely more efficient than using tables.
[3] I think the functional approach is easier for the same reason that this:
(def insert-sorted (< x xs)
(if (or no.xs (< x car.xs))
(cons x xs)
(cons car.xs (insert-sorted < x cdr.xs))))
is simpler than this:
(def ninsert-sorted (< x xs)
(if (or no.xs (< x car.xs))
(cons x xs)
(do (xloop (xs xs)
(if (or (no cdr.xs) (< x cadr.xs))
(= cdr.xs (cons x cdr.xs))
(next cdr.xs)))
xs)))
[4] I took my code and replaced, e.g., depth:x!lf with (depth x!lf) so this works without super-awesome ssyntax. Ad hoc shell scripts are fun.
$ pbpaste | sed -E 's/([a-z]+):([a-z]+[.!][a-z]+)/(\1 \2)/g' | pbcopy