Re: Storing a tree

From: Antonio Fiol Bonnín <fiol(at)w3ping(dot)com>
To: Micah Yoder <yodermk(at)home(dot)com>
Cc: Christian Meunier <jelan(at)magelo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Storing a tree
Date: 2001-11-10 15:08:46
Message-ID: 3BED42FE.B52E65B7@w3ping.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-jdbc

If you consider the approach using multiple trees, it may have quite a good
performance even for something like a threaded message board, if you think
of each thread as a different tree. Then trees are not enormous, and so
updates would not be so slow.

Performance will be poor, however, when updating very large trees.

Antonio Fiol

Micah Yoder wrote:

> > This approach will be two to three orders of magnitude faster than the
> > adjacency list model for subtree and aggregate operations.
>
> That's great, thanks for posting that!
>
> I take it this would NOT work well on things that are updated often, like
> threaded Net message boards with hundreds of thousands of messages...
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Michel POURE 2001-11-10 17:15:19 Re: Storing a tree
Previous Message AZIE 2001-11-10 10:51:54 win98

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jean-Michel POURE 2001-11-10 17:15:19 Re: Storing a tree
Previous Message Nick Fankhauser 2001-11-10 12:48:55 Re: JDBC Connection