8.3. Red-Black Trees#
As we’ve now seen, hash tables are an efficient data structure for implementing a map ADT. They offer amortized, expected constant-time performance—which is a subtle guarantee because of those “amortized” and “expected” qualifiers we have to add. Hash tables also require mutability to implement. As functional programmers, we prefer to avoid mutability when possible.
So, let’s investigate how to implement functional maps. One of the best data structures for that is the red-black tree, which is a kind of balanced binary search tree that offers worst-case logarithmic performance. So on one hand the performance is somewhat worse than hash tables (logarithmic vs. constant), but on the other hand we don’t have to qualify the performance with words like “amortized” and “expected”. Logarithmic is actually still plenty efficient for even very large workloads. And, we get to avoid mutability!
8.3.1. Binary Search Trees#
A binary search tree (BST) is a binary tree with the following representation invariant:
For any node n, every node in the left subtree of n has a value less than n’s value, and every node in the right subtree of n has a value greater than n’s value.
We call that the BST Invariant.
Here is code that implements a couple of operations on a BST:
type 'a tree = Node of 'a * 'a tree * 'a tree | Leaf
(** [mem x t] is [true] iff [x] is a member of [t]. *)
let rec mem x = function
| Leaf -> false
| Node (y, l, r) ->
if x < y then mem x l
else if x > y then mem x r
else true
(** [insert x t] is [t] with [x] inserted as a member. *)
let rec insert x = function
| Leaf -> Node (x, Leaf, Leaf)
| Node (y, l, r) as t ->
if x < y then Node (y, insert x l, r)
else if x > y then Node (y, l, insert x r)
else t
type 'a tree = Node of 'a * 'a tree * 'a tree | Leaf
val mem : 'a -> 'a tree -> bool = <fun>
val insert : 'a -> 'a tree -> 'a tree = <fun>
What is the running time of those operations? Since insert is just a mem
with an extra constant-time node creation, we focus on the mem operation.
The running time of mem is \(O(h)\), where \(h\) is the height of the tree,
because every recursive call descends one level in the tree. What’s the
worst-case height of a tree? It occurs with a tree of \(n\) nodes all in a single
long branch—imagine adding the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 in order into the
tree. So the worst-case running time of mem is still \(O(n)\), where \(n\) is the
number of nodes in the tree.
What is a good shape for a tree that would allow for fast lookup? A perfect binary tree has the largest number of nodes \(n\) for a given height \(h\), which is \(n = 2^{h+1} - 1\). Therefore \(h = \log(n+1) - 1\), which is \(O(\log n)\).
If a tree with \(n\) nodes is kept balanced, its height is \(O(\log n)\), which leads to a lookup operation running in time \(O(\log n)\).
How can we keep a tree balanced? It can become unbalanced during element insertion or deletion. Most balanced tree schemes involve adding or deleting an element just like in a normal binary search tree, followed by some kind of tree surgery to rebalance the tree. Some examples of balanced binary search tree data structures include:
AVL trees (1962)
2-3 trees (1970s)
Red-black trees (1970s)
Each of these ensures \(O(\log n)\) running time by enforcing a stronger invariant on the data structure than just the binary search tree invariant.
8.3.2. Red-Black Trees#
Red-black trees are relatively simple balanced binary tree data structure. The idea is to strengthen the representation invariant so that a tree has height logarithmic in the number of nodes \(n\). To help enforce the invariant, we color each node of the tree either red or black. Where it matters, we consider the color of an empty tree to be black.
type color = Red | Black
type 'a rbtree = Leaf | Node of color * 'a * 'a rbtree * 'a rbtree
type color = Red | Black
type 'a rbtree = Leaf | Node of color * 'a * 'a rbtree * 'a rbtree
Here are the new conditions we add to the binary search tree representation invariant:
Local Invariant: There are no two adjacent red nodes along any path.
Global Invariant: Every path from the root to a leaf has the same number of black nodes. This number is called the black height (BH) of the tree.
If a tree satisfies these two conditions, it must also be the case that every subtree of the tree also satisfies the conditions. If a subtree violated either of the conditions, the whole tree would also.
Additionally, by convention the root of the tree is colored black. This does not violate the invariants, but it also is not required by them.
With these invariants, the longest possible path from the root to an empty node would alternately contain red and black nodes; therefore it is at most twice as long as the shortest possible path, which only contains black nodes. The longest path cannot have a length greater than twice the length of the paths in a perfect binary tree, which is \(O(\log n)\). Therefore, the tree has height \(O(\log n)\) and the operations are all asymptotically logarithmic in the number of nodes.
How do we check for membership in red-black trees? Exactly the same way as for general binary trees.
let rec mem x = function
| Leaf -> false
| Node (_, y, l, r) ->
if x < y then mem x l
else if x > y then mem x r
else true
val mem : 'a -> 'a rbtree -> bool = <fun>
Okasaki’s Algorithm. More interesting is the insert operation. As with
standard binary trees, we add a node by replacing the leaf found by the search
procedure. But what can we color that node?
Coloring it black could increase the black height of that path, violating the Global Invariant.
Coloring it red could make it adjacent to another red node, violating the Local Invariant.
So neither choice is safe in general. Chris Okasaki (Purely Functional Data Structures, 1999) gives an elegant algorithm that solves the problem by opting to violate the Local Invariant, then walk up the tree to repair the violation. Here’s how it works.
We always color the new node red to ensure that the Global Invariant is preserved. If the new node’s parent is already black, then the Local Invariant has not been violated. In that case, we are done with the insertion: there has been no violation, and no work is needed to repair the tree. One common case in which this case occurs is when the new node’s parent is the tree’s root, which will already be colored black.
But if the new node’s parent is red, then the Local Invariant has been violated. In this case, the new node’s parent cannot be the tree’s root (which is black), therefore the new node has a grandparent. That grandparent must be black, because the Local Invariant held before we inserted the new node. Now we have work to do to restore the Local Invariant.
The next figure shows the four possible violations that can arise. In it,
a-d are possibly empty subtrees, and x-z are values stored at a node.
The nodes colors are indicated with R and B. We’ve marked the lower of the
two violating red nodes with square brackets. As we begin repairing the tree,
that marked node will be the new node we just inserted. Therefore it will have
no children—for example, in case 1, a and b would be leaves. (Later
on, though, as we walk up the tree to continue the repair, we can encounter
situations in which the marked node has non-empty subtrees.)
1 2 3 4
Bz Bz Bx Bx
/ \ / \ / \ / \
Ry d Rx d a Rz a Ry
/ \ / \ / \ / \
[Rx] c a [Ry] [Ry] d b [Rz]
/ \ / \ / \ / \
a b b c b c c d
Notice that in each of these trees, we’ve carefully labeled the values and nodes such that the BST Invariant ensures the following ordering:
all nodes in a
<
x
<
all nodes in b
<
y
<
all nodes in c
<
z
<
all nodes in d
Therefore, we can transform the tree to restore the Local Invariant by replacing any of the above four cases with:
Ry
/ \
Bx Bz
/ \ / \
a b c d
This transformation is called a rotation by some authors. Think of y as
being a kind of axis or center of the tree. All the other nodes and subtrees
move around it as part of the rotation. Okasaki calls the transformation a
balance operation. Think of it as improving the balance of the tree, as you
can see in the shape of the final tree above compared to the original four
cases. This balance function can be written simply and concisely using pattern
matching, where each of the four input cases is mapped to the same output case.
In addition, there is the case where the tree is left unchanged locally.
let balance = function
| Black, z, Node (Red, y, Node (Red, x, a, b), c), d
| Black, z, Node (Red, x, a, Node (Red, y, b, c)), d
| Black, x, a, Node (Red, z, Node (Red, y, b, c), d)
| Black, x, a, Node (Red, y, b, Node (Red, z, c, d)) ->
Node (Red, y, Node (Black, x, a, b), Node (Black, z, c, d))
| a, b, c, d -> Node (a, b, c, d)
val balance : color * 'a * 'a rbtree * 'a rbtree -> 'a rbtree = <fun>
Why does a rotation (i.e., the balance operation) preserve the BST Invariant? Inspect the figures above to convince yourself that the rotated tree ensures the proper ordering of all the nodes and subtrees. The choice of which labels were placed where in the first figure was clever, and is what guarantees that the final tree has the same labels in all four cases.
Why does a rotation preserve the Global Invariant? Before a rotation, the tree
satisfies the Global Invariant. That means the subtrees a-d below the
grandparent all have the same black height, and the grandparent adds one to that
height. In the rotated tree, the subtrees are all at the same level, but now x
and z add one to that height. The overall black height of the tree has not
changed, and each path continues to have the same black height.
Why does a rotation establish the Local Invariant? The only Local Invariant
violation in the tree before the rotation involved the marked node. After the
rotation, that violation has been eliminated. Moreover, since x and z are
colored black after the rotation, they cannot be creating new Local Invariant
violations with the root (if any) of subtrees a-d. However, the root of the
rotated tree is now y and is colored red. If that node has a parent—that
is, if the grandparent in cases 1-4 was not the root of the entire
tree—then it’s possible we just created a new Local Invariant violation
between y and its parent!
To address that possible new violation, we need to continue walking up the tree
from y to the root, and fix further Local Invariant violations as we go. In
the worst case, the process cascades all the way up to the top of the tree and
results in two adjacent red nodes, one of which has just become the root. But if
this happens, we can just recolor this new root from red to black. That finishes
restoring the Local Invariant. It also preserves the Global Invariant while
increasing the total black height of the entire tree by one—and that is
the only way the black height increases from an insertion. The insert code
using balance is as follows:
let insert x s =
let rec ins = function
| Leaf -> Node (Red, x, Leaf, Leaf)
| Node (color, y, a, b) as s ->
if x < y then balance (color, y, ins a, b)
else if x > y then balance (color, y, a, ins b)
else s
in
match ins s with
| Node (_, y, a, b) -> Node (Black, y, a, b)
| Leaf -> (* guaranteed to be non-empty *)
failwith "RBT insert failed with ins returning leaf"
val insert : 'a -> 'a rbtree -> 'a rbtree = <fun>
The amount of work done by insert is \(O(\log n)\). It recurses with ins down
the tree to a leaf, which is where the insert occurs, then calls balance at
each step on the way back up. The path to the leaf has length \(O(\log n)\),
because the tree was already balanced. And, each call to balance is \(O(1)\)
work.
The remove operation. Removing an element from a red-black tree works analogously. We start with a BST element removal and then do rebalancing. When an interior (nonleaf) node is removed, we simply splice it out if it has fewer than two nonleaf children; if it has two nonleaf children, we find the next value in the tree, which must be found inside its right child.
But, balancing the trees during removal from red-black tree requires considering more cases. Deleting a black element from the tree creates the possibility that some path in the tree has too few black nodes, breaking the Global Invariant.
Germane and Might invented an elegant algorithm to handle that rebalancing Their solution is to create “doubly-black” nodes that count twice in determining the black height. For more, read their paper: Deletion: The Curse of the Red-Black Tree Journal of Functional Programming, volume 24, issue 4, July 2014.
8.3.3. Maps and Sets from BSTs#
It’s easy to use a BST to implement either a map or a set ADT:
For a map, just store a binding at each node. The nodes are ordered by the keys. The values are irrelevant to the ordering.
For a set, just store an element at each node. The nodes are ordered by the elements.
The OCaml standard library does this for the Map and Set modules. It uses a
balanced BST that is a variant of an AVL tree. AVL trees are balanced BSTs in
which the height of paths is allowed to vary by at most 1. The OCaml standard
library modifies that to allow the height to vary by at most 2. Like red-black
trees, they achieve worst-case logarithmic performance.
Now that we have a functional map data structure, how does it compare to our imperative version, the hash table?
Persistence: Our red-black trees are persistent, but hash tables are ephemeral.
Performance: We get guaranteed worst-case logarithmic performance with red-black trees, but amortized, expected constant-time with hash tables. That’s somewhat hard to compare given all the modifiers involved. It’s also an example of a general phenomenon that persistent data structures often have to pay an extra logarithmic cost over the equivalent ephemeral data structures.
Convenience: We have to provide an ordering function for balanced binary trees, and a hash function for hash tables. Most libraries provide a default hash function for convenience. But the performance of the hash table does depend on that hash function truly distributing keys randomly over buckets. If it doesn’t, the “expected” part of the performance guarantee for hash tables is violated. So the convenience is a double-edged sword.
There isn’t a clear winner here. Since the OCaml library provides both Map and
Hashtbl, you get to choose.