• 0

Compare Two Binary Search Trees


Question

I have been trying to figure out a way to compare two Binary Search Trees without multi-threading or any other such parallel computing means. The goal is to test the equivalence of two Binary Search Trees.

The definition of equivalence here is that the number of nodes must be same, and values contained in the two trees must be equal.

For example, see the attached image for two equivalent trees. Now, how would you test the equivalence of these programmatically?

One method I know of is to traverse the tree using any of the traversal methods - Inorder, Preorder, Postorder, etc. and then compare the results with the other tree's. One may even use a BFS or DFS algorithm.

Any other more efficient ways you can think of doing this?

PS: I am NOT in school. This is NOT a homework assignment. I graduated 3 years ago and I am brushing up on data structures. So please keep an open mind. Thanks!

post-47097-1258666711.png

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/847418-compare-two-binary-search-trees/
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

it seems that what you really want to know is if they both contain the same nodes since the tree structure can be slightly different and still be balanced.

if you have or can keep a node count in your object that is updated as you add and remove nodes, you could use this as your first check to see if the trees are not equal. if both trees dont have the same number of nodes then you know they're not the same search trees. but having the same node count doesnt mean they are equal, so you can only use node counts to more quickly determine that they're not equal.

the next step if they do have an equal node count would be to traverse one tree and search for that node in the second tree. this should be fairly efficient since you're using search trees. the tree that's traversed would have each node touched once, and the tree being searched is s tree used for searching! at any time in this process if you cant find a node from tree A in tree B you can short circuit the comparison because you know the trees are not equal.

the worst case for this method is when the trees are equal since every node in tree A will have been searched and found in tree B and none of the short circuits would have occurred.

there may be other ways of doing this but this is the first way that popped into my head and it seems pretty good.

  • 0

Interesting! Yes, that sounds like a great solution!

What would be the time complexity of the algorithm you proposed? Is it O(N log N)? N for the tree traversal and log N for the search.

The algorithm in my original post was O(N) + O(N) + O(N) (correct me if I am wrong). However, looking at it from an execution time perspective, it would be slower than O(N log N).

  • 0
  Jebadiah said:
Interesting! Yes, that sounds like a great solution!

What would be the time complexity of the algorithm you proposed? Is it O(N log N)? N for the tree traversal and log N for the search.

The algorithm in my original post was O(N) + O(N) + O(N) (correct me if I am wrong). However, looking at it from an execution time perspective, it would be slower than O(N log N).

Well if I am not mistaken if your algorithm was O(N) then it should be faster no matter what the constants are.

In first case you always have 3*N execution time. So we can roughly say if N > 8 then it's faster than the 2nd algorithm. (I haven't studied any of them).

  • 0

I just got back to this thread. You're right again! In the worst case const * O(N) is better than O(N log N). I just did the calculations with some values of N and came to that conclusion. (Damn! I am so rusty with algorithm analyses now.)

To everyone: any other creative solutions for the original question that you can think of?

  • 0
  Jebadiah said:
That is the solution I talk about in my first post. :)

The preorder and postorder traversals would not produce the numbers in the same order though. And yeah, that seems to be the fastest solution I can currently think of (since it's pretty ****ing fast).

  • 0

function structeq (t1, t2 : tree) : boolean;
begin 
  if t1 = nil										then structeq := t2 = nil
  else if t2 = nil								 then structeq := false
  else if structeq(t1^.left, t2^.left)   then structeq := structeq(t1^.right, t2^.right)
  else												structeq := false
end

That's not my code. But it checks if two tree's have the same structure. To check the values as well you probably need to use "AND" t1.value = t2.value. Probably better to use it with C though, the short-circuited && will come in handy when you want to check the value only if the pointer is not null. (Pascal would require nested if's which is just biah). It's basically what you said, written in Pascal in a neat way.

You can't go any faster than that as far as I know.

  • 0
  gianpan said:
function structeq (t1, t2 : tree) : boolean;
begin 
  if t1 = nil										then structeq := t2 = nil
  else if t2 = nil								 then structeq := false
  else if structeq(t1^.left, t2^.left)   then structeq := structeq(t1^.right, t2^.right)
  else												structeq := false
end

That's not my code. But it checks if two tree's have the same structure. To check the values as well you probably need to use "AND" t1.value = t2.value. Probably better to use it with C though, the short-circuited && will come in handy when you want to check the value only if the pointer is not null. (Pascal would require nested if's which is just biah). It's basically what you said, written in Pascal in a neat way.

You can't go any faster than that as far as I know.

Cool! That way you can check if the two trees are identical in terms of value and structure together in O(N) time. It looks like a Preorder lockstep traversal. Good one!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Wrong again. Electric vehicles are more reliable than gasoline vehicles because they have fewer points of failure. On average, they last 50% longer. Its your right to be incorrect and my right to correct you.
    • Hello, I am using a Hitron CODA56 cable modem with Comcast Xfinity's 1200 Mbps service.  No issues noted.  I had looked at the Motorola and Netgear options for a cable modem, but neither was available for purchase at the time I upgraded my cable connection. There are multiple models in the Netgear Nighthawk X10 line-up.  I am guessing you have either the the Netgear Nighthawk X10 AD7000 model (R8900) or the Netgear Nighthawk X10 AD7200 model (R9000) model, is that correct?  Both of these only have one gigabit WAN (internet) ports for connection to the modem, all of the remaining ports for the LAN side of things are gigabit Ethernet ports.  The 10GbE port on the devices is meant for connection to local NAS storage.  I suppose you could connect the desktop computer directly to it, although it would still be limited by the gigabit connection between the cable modem and the Netgear residential gateway broadband router. I would suggest looking for a residential gateway broadband router from a company like Asus, Netgear, TP-Link or maybe even Ubiquiti, depending upon budget, that has 2.5Gbps (or faster) WAN and LAN ports.  That would allow you to make full use of the 1.2Gbps connection from your ISP as well as have some room for future growth, speed-wise. Regards, Aryeh Goretsky      
    • Firefox 140.0.1 by Razvan Serea Firefox is a fast, full-featured Web browser. It offers great security, privacy, and protection against viruses, spyware, malware, and it can also easily block pop-up windows. The key features that have made Firefox so popular are the simple and effective UI, browser speed and strong security capabilities. Firefox has complete features for browsing the Internet. It is very reliable and flexible due to its implemented security features, along with customization options. Firefox includes pop-up blocking, tab-browsing, integrated Google search, simplified privacy controls, a streamlined browser window that shows you more of the page than any other browser and a number of additional features that work with you to help you get the most out of your time online. Firefox 140.0.1 fixes: Fixed text contrast issues in the sidebar with some dark themes. (Bug 1971487) Fixed a startup crash experienced by some users caused by DLL injection. (Bug 1973947) Download: Firefox 64-bit | Firefox 32-bit | ARM64 | ~60.0 MB (Freeware) Download: Firefox 140.0.1 for Linux | 64-bit | ~90.0 MB Download: Firefox for MacOS | 127.0 MB View: Firefox Home Page | Release Notes Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Marites earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      runge100 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      runge100 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      jfam earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      TheRingmaster earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      575
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      184
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      178
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      136
    5. 5
      Xenon
      119
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!