Home -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> HUGE OT question: Re: Other tree representations in SQL

HUGE OT question: Re: Other tree representations in SQL

From: Finarfin <finarfin_at_sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 23:49:37 -0500
Message-ID: <wXAH9.7344$3J2.1151933_at_news20.bellglobal.com> 






--CELKO-- wrote:


>>> Although inorder traversal of a (non binary) tree is possible
>>> (you




> only have


> to specify what are "left" and "right" subtrees), in this post I'm

> gonna talk about postorder... <<

> 

> I have not had time to research the generalizations of inorder

> traversals; I think Knuth had one definition.  But it does not

> look like a good approach for building a tree in SQL because we

> are mostly interested in aggregation up and down the tree for

> reports in SQL. You can find a single node without using a

> traversal by using the key for that node in SQL.





Joe:



In my attempts to develop a relatively simple database I have 
followed the following path:



    
  
  1.   Attempt the develop a spreadsheet-like DB in MS Access.
  
  2.   Realize that Access is not a spreadsheet.
  
  3.   Find out that: There is such a beast as DB theory.
  
  4.   Read a book allegedly about database theory.
  
  5.   Find out about something called normalisation.
  
  6.   Buy a book or two by Date et. al.
  
  7.   Buy and learn K & R.
  
  8.   FINALLY learn that I know NOTHING about fundamentals and buy 
Knuth:
  
  9.   Where I am now, Chapter 1, trying to relearn induction.






So



Were you to give a beginner a bit of a hint, would you suggest 
that: If they were considering real DB development they should 
start with Knuth?



JE
Received on Thu Dec 05 2002 - 05:49:37 CET












Original text of this message