Skip to main content
Log in

A comparative study of 2-3 trees and AVL trees

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis, a survey, and compares the pertinent characteristics of AVL and 2-3 trees. In an attempt to optimize the space complexity of 2-3 trees, it introduces a new space saving and efficient top-down insertion and construction algorithm. The analysis shows that neither data structure totally dominates the other. The decision as to which is cost-wise efficient is a function of the application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. V. Aho, J. E. Hopcroft, and J. D. Ullman,The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. L. Baer and B. Schwab, “A Comparison of Tree-Balancing Algorithms,”Comm. ACM,20:322–330 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Bayer and E. McCreight, “Organization and Maintenance of Large Ordered Indexes,”Acta Informatica,1:173–189 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Comer, “The Ubiquitous B-Tree,”Computing Surveys,11:121–137 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Guibas and R. Sedgewick, “A Dichromatic Framework for Balanced Trees,”Proceedings of the 19th IEEE FOCS Conference, pp. 8–21 (1978).

  6. E. Horowitz and L. Sahni,Fundamentals of Data Structures (Computer Science Press, Rockville, Maryland, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. L. Karlton, et al., “Performance of Height-Balance Trees,”Comm. ACM,19:23–28 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. E. Knuth,The Art of Computer Programming Vol. 1 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. E. Knuth,The Art of Computer Programming Vol. 3 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. A. Martin and D. N. Ness, “Optimizing Binary Trees Grown With a Sorting Algorithm,”Comm. ACM,15:88–93 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. E. Miller, N. Pippenger, A. L. Rosenberg, and L. Snyder, “Optimal 2–3 Trees,”SIAM J. Comp.,8:42–49 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Nieverselt and E. M. Reingold, “Binary Search Trees of Bounded Balance,”SIAM J. Comp.,2:33–43 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Nievergelt, “Binary Search Trees and File Organization,”Computing Survey,6:195–207 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Rosenberg and L. Snyder, “Minimal Comparison 2–3 Trees,”SIAM J. Comp.,7:465–480 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. R. Van Doren, “An Asymptotic Analysis of Minimum OrderB-Trees,” Department of Computing and Information Sciences, Oklahoma State University, February, 1976.

  16. A. C. Yao, “On Random 2–3 Trees,”Acta Informatica,9:159–170 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. S. Zaki and J. L. Baer, “Query Costs inHB(1) Trees Versus 2–3 Trees,”Internat. J. Comp. Inform Sci.,6:383–395 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. S. Zaki,Insertion and Search in 2–3 Trees Versus HB(1)Trees, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA., 1977.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zaki, A.S. A comparative study of 2-3 trees and AVL trees. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences 12, 13–33 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00996801

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00996801

Key words

Navigation