Re: Relationship Issue
- From: "Jason Lepack" <jlepack@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Feb 2007 07:12:56 -0800
Pardon my ignorance for a moment.
I looked at this example that you pointed me to and have a question.
When I add a new item do I not have to modify every record in the
tree? That sounds like a lot of work. Granted I looked at my
original structure and decided that querying it would be quite
disgusting. But the question still exists.
Thanks,
Jason
On Feb 13, 7:13 am, "Jason Lepack" <jlep...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting... Good note Jamie.
Goes back and pulls out his University text on Foliage... I mean
trees.
Cheers,
Jason Lepack
On Feb 13, 5:36 am, "Jamie Collins" <jamiecoll...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:49 pm, "Jason Lepack" <jlep...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tbl_parts:
part_id - autonumber - pk
part_description - text
tbl_bom: (bill of material)
bom_id - autonumber - indexed(no dupes)
part_id - number - PK
sub_part_id - number - PK
Yes, your structure is denormalized. That's the nature of the
adjacency list approach :(
If you want a normalized model, try the nested sets approach. See:
Trees in SQL
by Joe Celkohttp://www.intelligententerprise.com/001020/celko.jhtml
His book, 'Trees and Hierarchies in SQL for Smarties' is pretty much
essential reading on the subject.
Jamie.
--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relationship Issue
- From: Jamie Collins
- Re: Relationship Issue
- References:
- Relationship Issue
- From: Jason Lepack
- Re: Relationship Issue
- From: Jamie Collins
- Re: Relationship Issue
- From: Jason Lepack
- Relationship Issue
- Prev by Date: Re: Event Mgmt 2000
- Next by Date: RE: Capturing an employee in a team at a point in time
- Previous by thread: Re: Relationship Issue
- Next by thread: Re: Relationship Issue
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|