What would happen to insertions, deletions, and searches in the hash table if the linked list pointers were preserved in an AVL tree instead of the traditional tree format? In your answer, you are required to provide an explanation of the running time based on the size of the hash table. Is the Big-Ohnotation really required?

What would happen to searches, insertions, and deletions in the hash table if the linked list pointers were maintained in an AVL tree rather than the standard tree format? What would be the purpose of the AVL tree? It is expected of you that inside your response, you would offer an explanation of the running time depending on the size of the hash table. Is the Big Oh Notation really necessary in this case?

Is there a set limit on the number of linked lists that may be included in a hash table of size m? I've been trying to get my head around the purpose of a hash function, but I just can't seem to get it. Provide an example that helps to demonstrate how your theory is correct.

Instead of using an array to store pointers to linked lists, you would like to explore using an AVL tree that you have pre-populated with a node for each address in the hash table. Therefore, the number of nodes n in the AVL tree corresponds to the size of the hash table. How would using an AVL tree to store the pointers to the linked lists affect the running time of insertions, deletions, and finds in the hash table? Your answer must include a justification that describes the running time in terms of the hash table size. You must use big-Oh notation. For clarification, here is an example of a hash table (with table size = 6) using Separate Chaining. "Prima" "Butera" - "Smith" 1 2 "Presley" |/ 3 4 "Sinatra" "Martin" "Davis" 5 Here is an example of the same items stored in the new AVL Tree – Separate Chaining approach you must explore. 3 2 "Sinatra" "Martin" "Davis" "Presley" / "Prima" "Butera" "Smith" /