I found lots of MinMax Heap implementations, that were storing data in an array. It is realy easy to implement, that is way I am looking for something different. I want to create a MinMax Heap using only elements of the Heap with pointers to left child and right child (and afcourse a key to compare). So the Heap have only pointer to the root object (min level), and a root object have a pointer to his children (max level) and so on. I know how to insert a new object (finding a proper path by using binary represenation of int depending on Heap size), but I don't know how to implement the rest (push up (down) the element, find parent or grandparent).
Thx for help
A priority queue using a heap ordered binary tree can be implemented using a triply linked list structure instead of an array. you will need three links per node:two to traverse down and one to traverse up.
The heapq module source code shows to implement the steps for pushing up and down. To switch from an array implementation to a pointer implementation, replace the arr[2*n+1] computation with node.left and arr[2*n+2] with node.right. For parent references such as arr[(n-1)>>1], every node will need a pointer to its parent, node.parent.
Alternatively, you can adopt a functional style which makes this all very easy to implement. I found the code for treaps implemented in Lisp to be an inspiration for how to do this.
I have solved this problem as part of an assignment long back. You can find it here
I have multiple implementations in Java and C++ implementing MinHeap with and without arrays. See my Java implementations for the solution. And yes it is very much possible to implement Heap without arrays. You just have to remember where to insert the next node and how to heapify and reverse heapify.
Edit1: I also tried to look up any existing solutions for min heap without arrays but couldn't find any. So, I am posting it here so it could be helpful for anyone who wishes to know the approach.
Yes, you can implement it without relying on an array.
I personally relied on a binary counter...
Here is my implementation(https://github.com/mohamedadnane8/HeapsUsingPointers) in c.
Note that this is still a very fast implementation with log(n).
1 => binary "1"
2=> "10" 3=> "11"
4=> "100" 5= "101" 6="110" 7="111"
In this program i tried to use the sequence of numbers to insert and delete as u can see above the tree can be easily represented as binary strings of numbers.
The first '1' in the binary string is to start.
After that the sequence of 0 and 1 determines where to go '1' means go to the left and '0' go to the right.
Also, note that this implementation relies on a very small array of characters or integers that make the calculation of the binary numbers faster but u can rely on bin() function to convert ur counter to a binary number(I implemented the array just to practice a bit my problem-solving skills).
Sorry if I couldn't explain it very well, I lack a bit in my communication skills.
It is hard implement binary heap without array. Because you should keep all the parent while inserting you pass and then do operation push up and down. like that [parent_1, parent_2 ... parant_k] and then if parent_(k+1) < parant_k pushUp and rearrange their right child and left child
Related
I am currently learning data structure and trying to implement a BST and max-heap(use BST as base class). But I accidentally found it seems impossible to derive heap from BST. Almost all the implementation for heap are based on array rather then using pointers point to left and right, and most of BST are based on pointers rather than array.
So my question is why I have to use array to realize a heap? And, in realizing BST, why people choose to use pointers point to left and right rather array? I know use array to realize BST may cost more space, and it is harder to implement remove function, is there any more reason for that?
Thank you so much!
The main reason standard implementation of binary heaps is done using arrays is because heaps are complete binary trees.
Because complete binary trees always grow level by level(Meaning:First the parent level will be filled with nodes and only then the child level is filled).
Therefore,We are able to use arrays where for a node at position i, the left child is found at position 2*i and right child is found at position 2*i+1.
The reason that binary search trees is implemented using pointers and not using arrays is because binary search trees are not guaranteed to be complete binary trees
Yes I have read this: Ukkonen's suffix tree algorithm in plain English?
It is a great explanation of the algorithm but it is not so much the algorithm itself that is killing me but rather the data structure used to implement it.
I need the data structure to be as minimal and as fast as possible and I have seen many implementations using only Nodes, some with only edges, some with edges and nodes, etc. Then there are variations, a website I was reading claimed that a node need not have a pointer to its parent, and other places don't account for how children of a node are managed.
My idea is to have a Node structure with int start, and int * end (points to the current end or phase i). Each node will have a suffix_link pointer, a pointer to its parent, and a pointer to a vector containing its child nodes.
My question is, are these things sufficient and necessary to implement a suffix tree? Can I minimize it in any way? I haven't seen an implementation with children in vectors yet so I am skeptical as to my own thinking. Could someone explain what one would need to implement a suffix tree in this manner using only nodes?
Following may be helpful:
Ukkonen’s Suffix Tree Construction
Here we have
1. start, end to represent edge label
2. suffix link
3. an array for children
When i have to implement that algorithm the better explained document was the original Ukkonen paper and there's one newer with images.
Yes in this documents are all the inside to implement Ukkonen's Suffix Tree algorithm.
I'm prepping for a Google developer interview and have gotten stuck on a question about heaps. I need to implement a heap as a dynamic binary tree (not array) where each node has a pointer to the parent and two children and there is a global pointer to the root node. The book asks "why won't this be enough?"
How can the standard tree implementation be extended to support heap operations add() and deleteMin()? How can these operations be implemented in this data structure?
Can you keep the size of total nodes ? if so, it's easy to know where you should add new element, because that's an almost full tree.
About deleteMin, I think that it will be less effective because you can't access directly to all leaves, as in array (N/2).
You should travel through all paths till you get leaf and then compare them, probably it will cost O(n)
I want to build a binary tree(not a BST) without using an array with has left and right directions instructions. Because, it strictly wouldnt make the tree a dynamic allocation one. You would be restricted by the size of the array. Can any one thing of a way out ?
Thanks in advance.
I'm not 100% sure I understood your question, but if it's binary it doesn't make sense to ask for a tree whose number of children (per node) can dynamically increase or decrease.
However, if that's what you need, instead of storing the pointers to the children in a simple array, use a list.
I have been implementing a heap in C++ using a vector. Since I have to access the children of a node (2n, 2n+1) easily, I had to start at index 1. Is it the right way? As per my implementation, there is always a dummy element at zeroth location.
Your way works. Alternatively you can have root at index 0 and have children at 2n+1 and 2n+2
While this works well for heaps, you end up using a huge amount of redundant memory for other tree data structures that do not necessarily have a full and complete Binary tree. For example, this means that if you have a Binary search tree of 20 nodes with a depth of 5, you end up having to use an array of 2^5=32 instead of 20. Now imagine if you need a tree of 25 nodes with a depth of 22. You end up using a huge array of 4194304, whereas you could have used a linked representation to store just the 25 nodes.
You can still use an array and not incur such a memory hit. Just allocate a large block of memory as an array and use array indices as pointers to the children.
Thus, where you had
node.left = (node.index*2)
node.right = (node.index*2+1)
You simply use
node.left = <index of left child>
node.right = <index of right child>
Or you can just use pointers/references instead of integer indices to an array if your language supports it.
Edit:
It might not be obvious to everyone that a complete binary search tree takes up O(2^d) memory. There are d levels and every level has twice as many nodes as the level its parent is in (because every node except those at the bottom has exactly two children - never one). A binary heap is a binary tree (but not a Binary Search Tree) that is always complete by definition, so an array based implementation outlined by the OP does not incur any real memory overhead. For a heap, that is the best way to implement it in code. OTOH, most other binary trees (esp. Binary Search Trees) are not guaranteed to be complete. So trying to use this approach on would need O(2^depth) memory where depth can be as large as n, where we only need O(n) memory in a linked implementation.
So my answer is: yes, this is the best way for a heap. Just don't try it for other binary trees (unless you're sure they will always be complete).