Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu
Delivery-Date: Fri Nov  7 21:04:52 2008
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.2.3
Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75])
	by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mA854pP3028309
	for <cs551@merlot.usc.edu>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:04:52 -0800
Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id mA84x8D3003702
	for <cs551@merlot>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 20:59:08 -0800
Message-Id: <200811080459.mA84x8D3003702@bourbon.usc.edu>
To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu
Subject: Re: index structures
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:59:08 -0800
From: Bill Cheng <william@bourbon.usc.edu>

Someone wrote:

  > Is it compulsary to use a BST for the filename and sha1 index structures?

The spec says:

    There is no efficiency requirement here

So, you can just use a linear list (just like the one
you used in warmup #2 for Q1).
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>