<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>De-amortizing Binary Search Trees · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1111.1665/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1111.1665/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>De-amortizing Binary Search Trees — mentioned by jbapple</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20732107</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1111.1665:20732107</guid><pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:56:03 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Weight is a weaker condition, since you can construct a polynomial weight sequence that results in linear height. I&amp;#x27;d like to hear more. The varieties of weight-balanced trees I&amp;#x27;m aware of all have logarithmic height. &amp;gt; In general, height is the easiest thing to restrict, but doing so restricts dynamic performance optimizations - you can&amp;#x27;t use splay trees, for instance Good point. BTW, you might be interested in Bose et al.&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;De-amortizing Binary Search Trees&amp;quot; &amp;lt;https://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1665.pdf&amp;gt;, shows how to keep height logarithmic with &amp;quot;essentially any Binary Search Tree&amp;quot; (their…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1111.1665/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DS</category></item></channel></rss>
