i have to explain what data structure is to someone, so what would be the easiest way to explain it? would it be right if i say
"Data structure is used to organize data(arrange data in some fashion) so that we can perform certain operation fastly with as little resource usage as possible"
How values are placed in locations together and their location addresses and indices are stored as values too.
And that as very abstract "structures" so one has linked lists, arrays, pointers, graphs, binary trees. And can do things with them (the algorithms). The capabilities like being sorted, needing sortedness, fast access and so on.
This is fundamental, not too complicated, and a good grasp of data
structures, the correct usage of data structures can solve problems
elegantly. For learning data structures a language like Pascal is more
beneficial than C.
In computer science, a data structure is a particular way of organizing data in a computer so that it can be used efficiently.
Source: wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure)
I would say what you wrote is pretty close. :)
Related
I am currently studying advanced data structures and I came across a weird data structure called Treap. I understand what Treap is but I can't seem to find it's utility in a valid use case scenario.
Why should you use such a data structure and in what type of problems/conditions treaps are best used?
I find myself much more into using either hash maps, min/max heaps, binary search tree or balanced binary search trees, but I can't tell on why should you use a treap.
They are easier to implement and more importantly, that makes them easier to modify/maintain into the future if you want to make slight variations on them or change them some way. They also allow for efficient parallel versions of set operations Union/Intersect/Difference which is extremely valuable. Using them simultaneously as a heap and binary tree isn't really very handy unless the stuff you use for priorities are coincidentally really nicely randomly distributed/permuted. I suppose there might be a case where that would be handy, but it seems really unlikely. Stuff so randomly distributed is usually more like a hash key which typically aren't useful as ordered data. How often do you want to pull people out in order of their SSNs? I guess it's possible but unlikely.
I want to implement a data structure myself in C++11. What I'm planning to do is having a data structure with the following properties:
search. O(log(n))
insert. O(log(n))
delete. O(log(n))
iterate. O(n)
What I have been thinking about after research was implementing a balanced binary search tree. Are there other structures that would fulfill my needs? I am completely new to this topic and thought a question here would give me a good jumpstart.
First of all, using the existing standard library data types is definitely the way to go for production code. But since you are asking how to implement such data structures yourself, I assume this is mainly an educational exercise for you.
Binary search trees of some form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-balancing_binary_search_tree#Implementations) or B-trees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-tree) and hash tables (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table) are definitely the data structures that are usually used to accomplish efficient insertion and lookup. If you want to go wild you can combine the two by using a tree instead of a linked list to handle hash collisions (although this has a good potential to actually make your implementation slower if you don't make massive mistakes in sizing your hash table or in choosing an adequate hash function).
Since I'm assuming you want to learn something, you might want to have a look at minimal perfect hashing in the context of hash tables (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_hash_function) although this only has uses in special applications (I had the opportunity to use a perfect minimal hash function exactly once). But it sure is fascinating. As you can see from the link above, the botany of search trees is virtually limitless in scope so you can also go wild on that front.
To organize multi-dimensional data,
What is the most useful and efficient tree data structure?
(eg, K-D-B tree, region quadtree, R-tree)
I want to know best search time and best space utilization tree structure.
It highly depends on how your data is distributed in the space and how you want to search for it (what are the criteria you query for?).
It is very easy to find the right quad-tree bin given a location in space, on the other hand it introduces more overhead than a well-shaped kd-tree. There is a reason why all of these techniques are still in use.
Specify the problem you want to solve with the data structure.
Different data structures, including trees and information about them and source code of their implementation is found at https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~ece250/Algorithms/
Furthermore, runtime information and asymptotic analysis on different types of tree structures is found under section 4 at https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~ece250/Lectures/Slides/
These are very useful and reliable and this way you can choose the best structure depending on your specific needs/ data
I hope this helps!
There are various types of trees I know. For example, binary trees can be classified as binary search trees, two trees, etc.
Can anyone give me a complete classification of all the trees in computer science?
Please provide me with reliable references or web links.
It's virtually impossible to answer this question since there are essentially arbitrarily many different ways of using trees. The issue is that a tree is a structure - it's a way of showing how various pieces of data are linked to one another - and what you're asking for is every possible way of interpreting the meaning of that structure. This would be similar, for example, to asking for all uses of calculus in engineering; calculus is a tool with which you can solve an enormous class of problems, but there's no concise way to explain all possible uses of the integral because in each application it is used a different way.
In the case of trees, I've found that there are thousands of research papers describing different tree structures and ways of using trees to solve problems. They arise in string processing, genomics, computational geometry, theory of computation, artificial intelligence, optimization, operating systems, networking, compilers, and a whole host of other areas. In each of these domains they're used to encode specific structures that are domain-specific and difficult to understand without specialized knowledge of the field. No one reference can cover all these ares in any reasonable depth.
In short, you seem to already know the structure of a tree, and this general notion is transferrable to any of the above domains. But to try to learn every possible way of using this structure or all its applications would be a Herculean undertaking that no one, not even the legendary Don Knuth, could ever hope to achieve in a lifetime.
Wikipedia has a nice compilation of the various trees at the bottom of the page
Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures has more information
What specifics are you looking for?
I've been working on toy a Database in Clojure and wanted to implement a B+ Tree. When I started thinking about it, I realised there may not be a way to have something like a pointer/reference to other nodes in Clojure. It doesn't matter for something like a BST or a lot of other Tree structures since all you need is to store a Node's child. But what do I do in something like a B+ tree where I need to be able to refer to a Node's sibling?
When looking for solutions, I came across a post in Google Groups about how you don't implement a Doubly linked list in Clojure because there are other ways of doing things in Clojure.
What do I do for a B+ Tree though?
It's not that it's difficult to have references to objects in clojure; but generally, these references are immutable. It's immutability which makes the doubly linked list impossible, because unlike a singly-linked list, you can't change any part of it without creating a mutation somewhere.
To see this, suppose I have a singly linked list,
a -> b -> c
and suppose I want to change the head of it. I can do so, with changing the entirety of the list. I create a new list by creating a new value for the head value, and reuse the tail:
a'-> b -> c
But doubly linked lists are impossible. So in clojure, and other functional languages, we sometimes use a zipper in such situations.
Now, suppose you really need mutable references in Clojure -- how do it? Well, depending on what concurrency semantics you need, clojure has vars, refs, atoms, etc.
Also, with deftype, you can create objects that have mutable fields, and these mutable fields can hold references to other things. You can also use raw java arrays in clojure for this same purpose.
Is your database going to be an in-memory database, or a disk-backed database? If on disk, I think that the issue of pointer swizzling is trickier than that of having mutable references.
Getting back to the issue of functional data structures, I believe that it is possible to create B-trees which have purely functional semantics. The first clue here is that it's a tree, and trees are the bread butter and meat of functional data structures. Secondly, note that there are databases which work in an append-only fashion -- couchDB for instance. This has the benefit that the database is its own log, in a sense. To get more of an idea of the costs and benefits of this approach you might want to watch Slava Akhmechet's presentation. His company, RethinkDB, eventually took a sort of hybrid approach, IIRC.
You may wish to look at Chouser's finger trees in Clojure to see how the functionality of a doubly-linked list may be implemented using functional style.
Alternatively, you may simply want to step back and ask yourself why you believe that B+ is a good choice of data structure for a functional language.
If you are unfamiliar with the alternatives, you may want to look at Chris Okazaki's book "Purely Functional Data Structures."