in reply to Re^3: Trees in SQL, adjacency lists and sorting.
in thread Trees in SQL, adjacency lists and sorting.

I beg to differ. In fact, here is an article about it: click
  • Comment on Re^4: Trees in SQL, adjacency lists and sorting.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Trees in SQL, adjacency lists and sorting.
by DungeonKeeper (Novice) on Jan 10, 2006 at 09:35 UTC
    About twelve years ago I had a similar idea to the one in the article for a multiple concurrent junior-senior structure but it isn't as simple as the article pretends. A whole family of stored procedures are in fact needed to support the complexity the writer either isn't seeing or isn't presenting and the developer is more likely to be told to come up with something simpler, especially if the DBMS doesn't have stored procedures.

    Update: the complexity I refer to occurs when the structure has to support insert update and delete by concurrent users.

    Everything but the troll

[reply]
      Actually I wrote a PHP class based on that article (and others that are similar) which requires no stored procedures and lets me pull out data with one query at the expense of slower inserts (it takes more than one query to insert data). I will be happy to post the source, although I have no perl counterpart.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom