Is there a way to avoid copying the whole search path of a binary tree on insert?
binary-tree, functional-programming, haskell
Solution
In terms of cost, the ML version is actually very similar to your Haskell version.
Every recursive call in the ML version results in a stack frame. The same is true in the Haskell version. This is going to be proportional in size to the path that you traverse in the tree. Also, both versions will of course allocate new nodes for the entire path if an insertion is actually performed.
In your Haskell version, every recursive call might also eventually result in the allocation of a `Just` node. This will go on the minor heap, which is just a block of memory with a bump pointer. For all practical purposes, GHC's minor heap is roughly equivalent in cost to the stack. Since these are short-lived allocations, they won't normally end up being moved to the major heap at all.
Problem
I've just started working my way through Okasaki's Purely Functional Data Structures, but have been doing things in Haskell rather than Standard ML. However, I've come across an early exercise (2.5) that's left me a bit stumped on how to do things in Haskell: Inserting an existing element into a binary search tree copies the entire search path even though the copied nodes are indistinguishable from the originals. Rewrite insert using exceptions to avoid this copying. Establish only one handler per insertion rather than one handler per iteration. Now, my understanding is that ML, being an impure language, gets by with a conventional approach to exception handling not so different to, say, Java's, so you can accomplish it something like this: ``` type Tree = E | T of Tree * int * Tree exception ElementPresent fun insert (x, t) = let fun go E = T (E, x, E) fun go T(l, y, r) = if x < y then T(go (l), x, r) else if y < x then T(l, x, go (r)) else raise ElementPresent in go t end handle ElementPresent => t ``` I don't have an ML implementation, so this may not be quite right in terms of the syntax. My issue is that I have no idea how this can be done in Haskell, outside of doing everything in the `IO` monad, which seems like cheating and even if it's not cheating, would seriously limit the usefulness of a function which really doesn't do any mutation. I could use the `Maybe` monad: ``` data Tree a = Empty | Fork (Tree a) a (Tree a) deriving (Show) insert :: (Ord a) => a -> Tree a -> Tree a insert x t = maybe t id (go t) where go Empty = return (Fork Empty x Empty) go (Fork l y r) | x < y = do l' <- go l; return (Fork l' y r) | x > y = do r' <- go r; return (Fork l y r') | otherwise = Nothing ``` This means everything winds up wrapped in `Just` on the way back up when the element isn't found, which requires more heap allocation, and sort of defeats the purpose. Is this allocation just the price of purity? EDIT to add: A lot of why I'm wondering about the suitability of the `Maybe` solution is that the optimization described only seems to save you all the constructor calls you would need in the case where the element already exists, which means heap allocations proportional to the length of the search path. The `Maybe` also avoids those constructor calls when the element already exists, but then you get a number of `Just` constructor calls equal to the length of the search path. I understand that a sufficiently smart compiler could elide all the `Just` allocations, but I don't know if, say, the current version of GHC is really that smart.