Re: matrix encoding IS adjacency list

David Cressey wrote:
> "Vadim Tropashko" <vadimtro_invalid_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127234496.491580.228310_at_g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > At the risk being annoying, formally, materialized path is not an
> > adjacency relation. For one thing, materialized path schema design
> >
> > table (
> > path varchar(1000)
> > )
> >
> > has only one column,
>
> Oops! It looks like my understanding of "materialized path" was incorrect.
>
> In that case, my comment about using materialized path in a star schema
> dimension table
> was incorrect, as a consequence.
>
> What I was thinking of as "materialized path" was a design where each of the
> levels of the hierarchy has its own column.
>
> I wonder what the name of that design is.

You still can call it a materialized path. Why not ? The way you store the path is determined by practical considerations, e.g. space vs. flexibility. There is no law prescribing that an m.p. should be stored only as a concatenated string. Received on Wed Sep 21 2005 - 18:01:02 CEST