Bart Lateur wrote: > But isn't there going to be a large overhead, in populating such a > "hash"? If you need an ordered data structure the overhead would be lower than using a hash. > Doesn't the tree have to be reorganized every time you add a > single new entry? No. Sometimes you may have to re-balance the tree, but that only requires examining the path to the item, not the entire tree. BTW, inserting into a hash also requires occasional reorganization. You want to keep both the number of buckets and collisions small, which forces reorganization as a hash grows. > Reading can be fast, I grant you. Faster than hashes sometimes. Anyways, hash syntax can be used to interface to balanced trees so there isn't any reason to debate them. - Ken
