On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Joonas Liik <liik.joo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Top-posting is heavily frowned at on this list, so please don't do it. > Balancing of trees is kind of irrelevant when "tree" means "search space" > no? I think it's relatively rare that DFS is truly the best algorithm for such a search. For one thing, "search space" often means "graph", not "tree". And for any other type of search, you'll want/need to implement it iteratively rather than recursively anyway. > And you definitely dont need to keep the entire tree in memory at the same > time. You could harness every single storage device on the planet and you would still not have nearly enough capacity to fill a balanced search tree to a depth of 1000. > Also should not-running-out-of-call-stack really be the main reason to > balance trees? > That sounds like an optimisation to me .. It is. My point was that if your unbalanced search tree is getting to a depth of 1000, then it's probably long past time for you to start thinking about optimizing it *anyway*. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list