ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Time- and space-optimality in B-trees
Full text PdfPdf (1.23 MB)
Source ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) archive
Volume 6 ,  Issue 1  (March 1981) table of contents
Pages: 174 - 193  
Year of Publication: 1981
ISSN:0362-5915
Authors
Arnold L. Rosenberg  IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY
Lawrence Snyder  Yale Univ., New Haven, CT
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 36,   Citation Count: 22
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/319540.319565
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

A B-tree is compact if it is minimal in number of nodes, hence has optimal space utilization, among equally capacious B-trees of the same order. The space utilization of compact B-trees is analyzed and compared with that of noncompact B-trees and with (node)-visit-optimal B-trees, which minimize the expected number of nodes visited per key access. Compact B-trees can be as much as a factor of 2.5 more space efficient than visit-optimal B-trees; and the node-visit cost of a compact tree is never more than 1 + the node-visit cost of an optimal tree. The utility of initializing a B-tree to be compact (which initialization can be done in time linear in the number of keys if the keys are presorted) is demonstrated by comparing the space utilization of a compact tree that has been augmented by random insertions with that of a tree that has been grown entirely by random insertions. Even after increasing the number of keys by a modest amount, the effects of compact initialization are still felt. Once the tree has grown so large that these effects are no longer discernible, the tree can be expeditiously compacted in place using an algorithm presented here; and the benefits of compactness resume.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
BAYER, R., AND MCCREIGHT, E. Organization and maintenance of large ordered indexes. Acta Informatica 1, 3 (1972), 173-189.
2
 
3
 
4
MILLER, R.E., PIPPENGER, N., ROSENBERG, A.L., AND SNYDER, L. Optimal 2,3 trees. SIAM J. Cornput. 8, 1 (1979), 42-59.
 
5
ROSENBERG, A.L., AND SNYDER, L. Minimal comparison 2,3 trees. SIAM J. Comput. 7, 4 {1978), 465-480.
 
6
SNYDER, L. On uniquely represented data structures. Proc. 18th Annu. Conf. Foundations of Computer Science, 1977, pp. 412-417.
 
7
YAO, A.C. On random 2,3 trees. Acta Informatica 9, 3 (1978), 159-170.

CITED BY  22

Collaborative Colleagues:
Arnold L. Rosenberg: colleagues
Lawrence Snyder: colleagues