views:

1982

answers:

5

Hello,

To begin with, this question is not a dup of this one, but builds on it.

Taking the tree in that question as an example,

    1 
   / \
  2   3
 /   / \
4   5   6

How would you modify your program to print it so,

1
2 3
4 5 6

rather than the general

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6

I'm basically looking for intuitions on the most efficient way to do it - I've got a method involving appending the result to a list, and then looping through it. A more efficient way might be to store the last element in each level as it is popped, and print out a new line afterward.

Ideas?

+1  A: 

Sounds like breadth-first traversal to me.

Breadth-first traversal is implemented with a queue. Here, simply insert in the queue a special token that indicate that a newline must be printed. Each time the token is found, print a newline and re-insert the token in the queue (at the end -- that's the definition of a queue).

Start the algorithm with a queue containing the root followed by the special newline token.

Pascal Cuoq
Yes, I mentioned the BFS part in the title :) I was thinking about the newline in the queue as well, but it seems wrong to intersperse formatting tokens within the queue itself.
viksit
@Viksit Would it be more acceptible to store the depth of each node in the queue? In that case you could simply print a newline each time the current traversal depth is increased.
Andreas Brinck
Ah, yes, "BFS"... I see what this three-letter acronym means now. Is the "S" for search? Isn't "search" always depth-first (or you built your binary tree wrong in the first place)?
Pascal Cuoq
@Andreas Nice! I was a little reluctant to mix special tokens and nodes in the queue too (but you have to do what you have to do...)
Pascal Cuoq
@Pascal I actually thought a little more and came up with a version that didn't require any extra storage whatsoever :)
Andreas Brinck
@Pascal - ah, I guess I've always referred to depth first and breadth first traversals as DFS and BFS respectively..
viksit
A: 

compute from known arrayindex shall work. good sources are Baase & Allen Van Gelder, ford-fulkerson and alternative innovative datamodels heap, trie and red-black tree.

LarsOn
I've seen this answer before... I remember its peculiar syntax and vague on-topicness. You're a bot, aren't you?
Pascal Cuoq
I'm not quite sure what you refer to - FF is a max flow algorithm, the other terms are quite vague in their particular application to this question.
viksit
@Pascal - thats the feeling I get too..
viksit
sources sure mention BFS. We don't know what it applies to other datamodel can improve. mean filesystem often has B-Tree. I recommend Trie, bot or not. Question may be so simple to remove every 2nd line.
LarsOn
+5  A: 

Just build one level at a time, e.g.:

class Node(object):
  def __init__(self, value, left=None, right=None):
    self.value = value
    self.left = left
    self.right = right

def traverse(rootnode):
  thislevel = [rootnode]
  while thislevel:
    nextlevel = list()
    for n in thislevel:
      print n.value,
      if n.left: nextlevel.append(n.left)
      if n.right: nextlevel.append(n.right)
    print
    thislevel = nextlevel

t = Node(1, Node(2, Node(4, Node(7))), Node(3, Node(5), Node(6)))

traverse(t)

Edit: if you're keen to get a small saving in maximum consumed "auxiliary" memory (never having simultaneously all this level and the next level in such "auxiliary" memory), you can of course use collection.deque instead of list, and consume the current level as you go (via popleft) instead of simply looping. The idea of creating one level at a time (as you consume --or iterate on-- the previous one) remains intact -- when you do need to distinguish levels, it's just more direct than using a single big deque plus auxiliary information (such as depth, or number of nodes remaining in a given level).

However, a list that is only appended to (and looped on, rather than "consumed") is quite a bit more efficient than a deque (and if you're after C++ solutions, quite similarly, a std::vector using just push_back for building it, and a loop for then using it, is more efficient than a std::deque). Since all the producing happens first, then all the iteration (or consuming), an interesting alternative if memory is tightly constrained might be to use a list anyway to represent each level, then .reverse it before you start consuming it (with .pop calls) -- I don't have large trees around to check by measurement, but I suspect that this approach would still be faster (and actually less memory-consuming) than deque (assuming that the underlying implementation of list [[or std::vector]] actually does recycle memory after a few calls to pop [[or pop_back]] -- and with the same assumption for deque, of course;-).

Alex Martelli
+1 I can see how using two `vector`s for the two levels could be more efficient than using a single `deque`. Especially if `nextLevel` is moved outside the `while`-loop and cleared instead of allocating a new one on the stack for each level (this is the C++ version I'm talking about, I've no idea how memory is managed in Python). This would also allow for very good cache utilization.
Andreas Brinck
Yes, in C++ you'd definitely want to `swap` the vectors (and clear out the new one -- with the old one's contents -- right after that, if you're looping on it rather than using `pop_back`). In Python you could do `thislevel[:] = nextlevel`, then if needed `del nextlevel[:]`, with similar effect (though I'm not sure the actual performance improvement would be measurable, it sure can't hurt;-).
Alex Martelli
@Alex - thanks for a great answer. The note on the iteration vs consumption of lists was quite informative!
viksit
A: 

A version that doesn't require extra storage:

std::deque<Node> bfs;
bfs.push_back(start);
int nodesInThisLayer = 1;
int nodesInNextLayer = 0;
while (!bfs.empty()) {
    Node front = bfs.front();
    bfs.pop_front();
    for (/*iterate over front's children*/) {
        ++nodesInNextLayer;
        nodes.push_back(child);
    }
    std::cout << node.value;
    if (0 == --nodesInThisLayer) {
        std::cout << std::endl;
        nodesInThisLayer = nodesInNextLayer; 
        nodesInNextLayer = 0;
    } else {
        std::cout << " ";
    }
}

P.S. sorry for the C++ code, I'm not very fluent in Python yet.

Andreas Brinck
@Andreas - nice! I was looking at a version of this algorithm where I would store the "level" or "depth" of where the loop was (so, this tree would have 3 levels). The problem I faced was how to increment this level each time. Looks like your approach of storing the depth of each element works better.
viksit
@Viksit If you look closer I only stores two extra integers, one for how many nodes are left to process in the current level and one for how many nodes are left to process in the next level (Or was this what you meant?)
Andreas Brinck
A: 

why not keep sentinal in queue and check when all the nodes in current level are processed.

public void printLevel(Node n) { Queue q = new ArrayBlockingQueue(); Node sentinal = new Node(-1); q.put(n); q.put(sentinal); while(q.size() > 0) { n = q.poll(); System.out.println(n.value + " "); if (n == sentinal && q.size() > 0) {q.put(sentinal); //push at the end again for next level System.out.println(); } if (q.left != null) q.put(n.left); if (q.right != null) q.put(n.right); } }

Naresh