Re: Ordered result set with path enumeration

It must be ancestor. When displaying hierarchy chart "rolled down" ancestor is always preceding its descendants.

Note that in couple of places it was written "immediate parent". Therefore, in all cases where the parent is not explicitly adjected with "immediate", I reserve a possibility of mistake;-)

lennart_at_kommunicera.umea.se (Lennart Jonsson) wrote in message news:<6dae7e65.0309152011.6a4cc4fa_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_ywho.com> wrote in message news:<msb0b.24$hi4.63_at_news.oracle.com>...
> > "Vadim Tropashko" <vadimtro_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:22d2e427.0308172007.7eb298f_at_posting.google.com...
> > > Dieter Nöth <dnoeth_at_gmx.de> wrote in message
> > news:<bhooo1$1kdal$1_at_ID-28204.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> Vadimtro (Mikito?). Shouldnt 6. be changed to
>
> 6. For any nodes A and B we write A > B whenever
> i. B is an ancestor of A or ...
>
> ? I noticed that Mikito used the OrgChart (ancestor) relation, and
> when I played a round with a similar thing myself, some tuples are
> missing in my "total_order" relation using parent.
>
> [...]
>
> Kind regards
> /Lennart
>
>
> > > 6. For any nodes A and B we write A > B whenever
> > > i. B is parent of A or
> > > ii. there exists node B' which is an ancestor of B,
> > > and A' which is an ancestor of A,
> > > and both A' and B' having the same parent,
> > > and A' > B'
> > > 7. For any node A, the depth first enumeration number is the number of
> > > nodes that are predecessors of A with the ordering defined at the
> > > step# 6.
> >
>
> [...]
Received on Tue Sep 16 2003 - 11:00:24 CDT