Re: A new approach to storing ordered hierarchical data in RDBs.
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:21:15 GMT
Message-ID: <vuO8h.346273$5R2.182091_at_pd7urf3no>
>>Lennart wrote:
>>
>>>Aloha Kakuikanu wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please make sure you use terms correctly. What you have meant by
>>>>"lineage" is "transitive closure". This article
>>>>http://www.sqlteam.com/item.asp?ItemID=8866
>>>>uses the term "lineage" in the sense of "materialized path".
>>>
>>>
>>>I especially liked the phrase "Don't worry about the loop" :-)
>>>
>>>/Lennart
>>>
>>
>>I especially laughed at the phrase "XML handles hierarchical ... quite
>>well". How the dickens does XML per se calculate transitive closure or
>>depth from an adjency list or an adjaceny list from a tree? It seems to
>>me that XML by itself only allows adhoc solutions that are just as
>>non-declarative as various SQL versions. For that matter, the original
>>relational model seems to requires similar adhoc additions. I don't
>>have a solution, but it seems to me that all three are lacking and it is
>>irresponsible, ignorant and cavalier to use the adverb "well" regarding
>>accomplishing closure with any of them.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:21:15 GMT
Message-ID: <vuO8h.346273$5R2.182091_at_pd7urf3no>
Aloha Kakuikanu wrote:
> paul c wrote: >
>>Lennart wrote:
>>
>>>Aloha Kakuikanu wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please make sure you use terms correctly. What you have meant by
>>>>"lineage" is "transitive closure". This article
>>>>http://www.sqlteam.com/item.asp?ItemID=8866
>>>>uses the term "lineage" in the sense of "materialized path".
>>>
>>>
>>>I especially liked the phrase "Don't worry about the loop" :-)
>>>
>>>/Lennart
>>>
>>
>>I especially laughed at the phrase "XML handles hierarchical ... quite
>>well". How the dickens does XML per se calculate transitive closure or
>>depth from an adjency list or an adjaceny list from a tree? It seems to
>>me that XML by itself only allows adhoc solutions that are just as
>>non-declarative as various SQL versions. For that matter, the original
>>relational model seems to requires similar adhoc additions. I don't
>>have a solution, but it seems to me that all three are lacking and it is
>>irresponsible, ignorant and cavalier to use the adverb "well" regarding
>>accomplishing closure with any of them.
> > > Why everybody interpreted my message as if I endorsed this article? I > didn't imply anything about its quality. (Although, as you may notice, > there are quite many happy developers comments -- it requires very > little to get a programmer excited, isn't it?-) >
I didn't interpret your message that way, even though I agreed with it in my peculiar way! I thought it was ambiguous in a way that mocked the seemingly original but actually artificial article.
p Received on Wed Nov 22 2006 - 03:21:15 CET