Re: Nested Sets And Pedigrees

From: --CELKO-- <71062.1056_at_compuserve.com>
Date: 9 Apr 2002 15:05:45 -0700
Message-ID: <c0d87ec0.0204091405.2295590a_at_posting.google.com>

>> What I currently thought of doing, until I read about your elegant
nested set posts,.. <<

It is elegant, isn't it <g>

>> was to have a table Person, a table FamilyLink and a table
LinkRole. I then thought maybe I could apply nested sets instead, but it seems to not be the case. There are many potential complications ... <<

Arkansas marriages? But it is the fact that each child has two, not one, parents is the real sourc eof the problem.

Sorry. Received on Wed Apr 10 2002 - 00:05:45 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: David Hare-Scott: "Re: Table Names: Singular or Plural?"
Previous message: Lennart Jonsson: "Re: Three tables join"
Maybe in reply to: drop the numbers: "Nested Sets And Pedigrees"
In reply to drop the numbers: "Re: Nested Sets And Pedigrees"
Next in thread: David Hare-Scott: "Re: Table Names: Singular or Plural?"
Reply: Jan Hidders: "Re: Nested Sets And Pedigrees"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message