Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kd-tree"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(dummy edit, I accidentally make last edit as minor) |
(It depends) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The Bucket PR k-d tree (I'll refer as just a tree from now on) is a binary tree split by the median of the bound, right? I wonder if I make it m-''ary'' tree, let say, Ternary or Quaternary tree instead of just binary? Will it better? » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | The Bucket PR k-d tree (I'll refer as just a tree from now on) is a binary tree split by the median of the bound, right? I wonder if I make it m-''ary'' tree, let say, Ternary or Quaternary tree instead of just binary? Will it better? » <span style="font-size:0.9em;color:darkgreen;">[[User:Nat|Nat]] | [[User_talk:Nat|Talk]]</span> » 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note, it doesn't by definition have to be split by the median, though the median is usually considered the best place. As far as your second question... it may be better, or it may not. I'm pretty sure it will depend heavily on the implementation details and the data set in question. --[[User:Rednaxela|Rednaxela]] 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:51, 15 August 2009
Bucket PR k-d tree
I think you all know about Bucket PR k-d tree (aka Simonton's tree), right? I'll get directly to my point.
The Bucket PR k-d tree (I'll refer as just a tree from now on) is a binary tree split by the median of the bound, right? I wonder if I make it m-ary tree, let say, Ternary or Quaternary tree instead of just binary? Will it better? » Nat | Talk » 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Note, it doesn't by definition have to be split by the median, though the median is usually considered the best place. As far as your second question... it may be better, or it may not. I'm pretty sure it will depend heavily on the implementation details and the data set in question. --Rednaxela 14:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
