Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib/tree

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Cc: <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib/tree
Date: 2002-01-26 19:07:36
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0201261406000.688-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Oleg Bartunov writes:

> does your approach handle directed graphs ( DAG ) ?
> Actually our module is just a result of our research for new
> data type which could handle DAGs ( yahoo, dmoz -like hierarchies)
> effectively in PostgreSQL.
> While we didn't find a solution we decided to release this module
> because 64 children would quite ok for many people.
> Of course, 128 would be better :-)

I was under the impression that the typical way to handle tree structures
in relational databases was with recursive unions.  It's probably
infinitely slower than stuffing everything into one datum, but it gets you
all the flexibility that the DBMS has to offer.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2002-01-26 19:25:13
Subject: Re: contrib/tree
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-01-26 17:52:34
Subject: Re: Theory about XLogFlush startup failures

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group