Template talk:CS trees
Page contents not supported in other languages.
... there are much more typical uses forR-trees, in particular in geodata.Given that there is extra space, should we also link R*-tree, R+-tree? In particular, R*-trees are afaict usually preferred to a plain R-tree.--Chire2 (talk)14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a link to "term" (imho, its best explanation is atFirst-order_logic#Terms, others are atTerm (logic) andTerm (mathematics)), a notion used interm rewriting,universal algebra,logic, etc.? It is, however, rather an application of the ordinary (non-binary) tree data-structure, rather than a particular data-structure by its own. I'm not quite sure about the scope of this template.Jochen Burghardt (talk)17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This template's listing of trees uses a rather strange categorization. First come the binary trees, which are actually all binarysearch trees. Then come the self-balancing BSTs, as if those aren't binary. Then the B-trees, which should really be grouped with the search trees since they too implementdynamic sets and maps on arbitrary ordered datatype.
But the strangest category is that of the "non-binary trees", which doesnot include the B-trees, but it does include the interval trees, which are really extended search trees: they can be BSTs or B-trees. The same goes for the order statistic tree, which is, however, listed under "other trees".
Finally, several heap data structures are listed, but the main ones aren't, even though all heaps are conceptually trees.
I suggest a reorganization in terms of use case rather than the current, ad-hoc organization:
Any objections?QVVERTYVS(hm?)12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]