Re: [PATCH 2/4] [RFC] Range tree implementation

From: John Stultz
Date: Thu May 31 2012 - 19:12:29 EST


On 05/31/2012 03:35 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 31-05-12 14:04:23, John Stultz wrote:
On 05/31/2012 01:48 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 25-05-12 12:17:34, John Stultz wrote:
I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I
couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees
and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do
let me know if you have a better name.
Well, interval tree is a data structure for tracking a set of
possibly overlapping intervals. Range tree is a data structure tracking
points allowing for fast queries on a set of points contained in a given
range (gets useful and interesting when dimension> 1). Your data structure
is neither so it would be good to have a different name. OTOH there are so
many data structures that it's hard to find a reasonable unused name ;)
Although I'm not sure your interval tree description doesn't match
what I'm trying to provide. Could you clarify why that doesn't
match?
Wikipedia has a good description of Interval trees:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_tree

For example they are tertiary trees.
So roughly the naive approach listed in the wikipedia link is what I'm using here.
I'm fine renaming it to interval_tree, but if you really think it should be something else, by all means let me know.

+
+/**
+ * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree
+ * @root: range tree to be added to
+ * @node: range_tree_node to be added
+ *
+ * Adds a node to the range tree.
I think you should document here that the added range must not intersect
with any other range in the tree.
So for my usage in the volatile range code, I don't want
intersecting or overlapping ranges added, but I didn't feel it was
necessary to add this restriction to my rangetree code as well,
since someone might want to store overlapping ranges.
Ok, but then you should define where an interval that is intersecting
other intervals ends up sorted...
Ah. I see the issue you're concerned about!

Since the ranges are sorted by starting value, you could have a set of values: (0,5),(0,100),(0,50) and since they have the same start value, they could be connected adjacently in any way possible in the tree. Thus, the current search function wouldn't necessarily handle searching for (25,30) properly. Since if it hit (0,5) first, it would move right, where as (0,100) could reasonably be left of (0,5).

Thanks for pointing this out. While I didn't want to needlessly add the restriction that added ranges didn't intersect, it seems by focusing on my usage where it didn't intersect, I in effect encoded that restriction into the search. I'll go ahead and clarify this restriction in the comment and if folks want to extend the code to handle overlapping intervals, we can re-implement the logic then.

thanks
-john

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/