> > I once started writing a small paper on this subject; it is still in a
> > rather preliminary state.
> > You can download the draft (and some ill documented code, 53kB) from
> > http://www.utdt.edu/~mig/sql-trees
> ah, this looks very, very nice!
> on page 5ff you describe the Postgres implementation, but the URL (page
> 5 bottom) is't complete -- can i find the files somewhere?
> Included is a "tree_general.sql", but this seems not to be complete and
> not the same version as the ps-file (First draft, may 6, 2000): in the
> draft there is written about an base 160 encoding, tree_general.sql uses
> base 159 encoding ;)
Sorry, I never got around to completing this, or thinking any further. My
other files are definitely not in a usable state right now. I hope to be
to improve things over the (southern) summer holidays, so there may be
soon - but do not hold your breadth!
I can't remember why I switched from base 160 to base 159; my guess now
I got confused at coding time between the base and the maximal number
ie, it may be a mistake.
> What's against using all characters >= 32, excluding special characters
> with special meaning in LIKE and regexps? With base 208 encoding it's
> possible to have 43264 elements on each level.
Nothing, I guess. I probably got some kind of "start counting at zero"
blockage when I started, and never really looked back on it, my shame.
Hey, I told you it was rather preliminary ... Thanks for pointing it out.
> i guess, with base 160 encoding there might be a problem: if postgres is
> compiled with --enable-locale (e.g. for german umlauts), the ordering
> isn't according to the ASCII number of the character, so for this
> purpose it's needed to build the encoding table according to the locate
> settings. Or simply sort it according the locale settings.
Yes indeed; never thought about that one.
In response to
pgsql-sql by date
|Next:||From: Alessio Bragadini||Date: 2000-12-15 12:23:40|
|Subject: Confused by timezones|
|Previous:||From: Karel Zak||Date: 2000-12-15 10:49:47|
|Subject: Re: to_timestamp, problem|