Author serhiy.storchaka
Recipients Arfrever, Giovanni.Bajo, PaulMcMillan, ReneSac, Vlado.Boza, alex, arigo, benjamin.peterson, camara, christian.heimes, cvrebert, dmalcolm, gregory.p.smith, koniiiik, lemburg, mark.dickinson, sbermeister, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, Łukasz.Rekucki
Date 2012-11-30.21:25:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> Serhiy Storchaka: Yes, but it is still O(log n) worst case. Even in the
> worst case rebalancing, you only need to walk up/down rotating/spliting
> every node in your path. As the tree height is guaranteed to be x * log n
> (x from 1 to 2, depending on the algorithm), the rebalancing operation is
> aways limited by O(log n).

Agree. However I think that for large enough data a balanced tree is slower 
than a hashtable with any slow hash.
Date User Action Args
2012-11-30 21:25:55serhiy.storchakasetrecipients: + serhiy.storchaka, lemburg, arigo, gregory.p.smith, mark.dickinson, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, Arfrever, alex, cvrebert, dmalcolm, Giovanni.Bajo, PaulMcMillan, Vlado.Boza, koniiiik, sbermeister, camara, Łukasz.Rekucki, ReneSac
2012-11-30 21:25:54serhiy.storchakalinkissue14621 messages
2012-11-30 21:25:54serhiy.storchakacreate