Re: Ordered result set with path enumeration
Date: 15 Sep 2003 21:11:12 -0700
Message-ID: <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 - 06:11:12 CEST