2006
DOI: 10.1137/s0097539703436722
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fully Dynamic Orthogonal Range Reporting on RAM

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, we obtain the current-record query time for dynamic orthogonal range reporting in any constant dimension d ≥ 3 with polylogarithmic update time: O((log n/ log log n) d−3 log n + k) query time with O(log d+6+ε n) amortized expected update time. Compare this to Mortensen's previous result [24], which has query time worse by almost a log factor, though with a better update bound: O((log n/ log log n) d−1 + k) query time with O(log d−1−1/8+ε n) update time. (See also [25] and references therein for more on dynamic orthogonal range reporting.)…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Consequently, we obtain the current-record query time for dynamic orthogonal range reporting in any constant dimension d ≥ 3 with polylogarithmic update time: O((log n/ log log n) d−3 log n + k) query time with O(log d+6+ε n) amortized expected update time. Compare this to Mortensen's previous result [24], which has query time worse by almost a log factor, though with a better update bound: O((log n/ log log n) d−1 + k) query time with O(log d−1−1/8+ε n) update time. (See also [25] and references therein for more on dynamic orthogonal range reporting.)…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…For b = log ε n, the query time is thus O(log n + k). The 3-d j-sided orthogonal range reporting problem reduces to 3-d (j − 1)-sided range reporting by standard binary divide-and-conquer (e.g., see [24]), where the update time (but not the query time) increases by a logarithmic factor. Thus, 3-d general (6-sided) orthogonal range reporting reduces to 3-d dominance range reporting, where the update time increases by a log 3 n factor.…”
Section: Theorem 32mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of these work (see [13,43,44,45,53] for a sample) are about van-EmdeBoas-type results, with only a few exceptions (e.g., [49,68]). For instance, Karlsson [44] obtained an O(n lg lg U )-time algorithm for the L ∞ -Voronoi diagram in 2-d. Chew and Fortune [25] later showed how to construct the Voronoi diagram under any fixed convex polygonal metric in 2-d in O(n lg lg n) time after sorting the points along a fixed number of directions.…”
Section: (Almost) Orthogonal Problemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dietz [11] first describes this problem in the context of fully persistent arrays, and gives a solution yielding O(log log m) expected amortized time operations, where m := |L| + q i=1 |S i | is the total number of element occurrences in subsets. Mortensen [15] describes a solution that supports updates to the subsets in expected O(log log m) time, and all other operations in O(log log m) worst case time. In section 3 we describe a UR version.…”
Section: Theorem 23 (Selected Treap Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They use O(n log n) space and use O(1)-wise independent hash functions. Although better redundant data structures for these problems are known [16,17,3] (an O(log log n)-factor improvement), our data structures are the first to be uniquely represented. Furthermore they are quite simple, arguably simpler than previous redundant structures that match our bounds.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%