Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 00:03:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4husa0pubg2len122cvcohip05n4ta2dn3_at_4ax.com>
On 20 May 2004 15:07:05 -0700, Neo wrote:
Hi Neo,
>> > Changing any one of them would corrupt the data.
>>
>> No. Changing any of them would result in a foreign key violation and the
>> transaction would be rolled back by SQL Server. You didn't miss the
>> "references" clauses in my DDL, did you?
>
>You are correct. I could not change the name of any thing in the first
>two columns of table hierarchies so I could not corrupt the data this
>way; however, this design prevents two things from having the same
>name, thus it is a non-generic solution.
Already addressed elsewhere.
>I did manage to corrupt the data by changing one of the duplicate
>'leader' to 'leader2' in the third column. You missed it here. In
>XDb1, the relator 'leader' is normalized.
Hold on a minute, Neo. Please check what you posted in the message that started this discussion:
"(...) and the solution must be as generic, meaning allow the user to
create ANY hierarchy, (...)"
My first attempt at your challenge didn't have a table hierarchies, it had
a table leadership (or something like that), with two columns leader and
Now, I just tested what would happen if I tried to do the same kind of thing with the XDb1 solution. I entered "laptop1 leader2 trinity." and got the following error message: "Invalid relator."
Hmmmmm. I thought the requirement was to "allow the user to create ANY hierarchy" ????
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=any
Best, Hugo
-- (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 00:03:09 CEST