Andrew Piskorski wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
>
>> For web applications (sqlite being now the default database for PHP5),
>> COUNT(*)
>> performance is more important than INSERTs and DELETEs performance. The
>> obvious
>
>That sounds VERY much like
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 12:09:08PM +0100, Bertrand Mansion wrote:
> For web applications (sqlite being now the default database for PHP5),
> COUNT(*)
> performance is more important than INSERTs and DELETEs performance. The
> obvious
That sounds VERY much like a matter of opinion. I strongly
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:16:35PM -0600, Kurt Welgehausen wrote:
> > ...I'd like to use a table as a "pure" BTree ...
>
> If you mean a general multi-way B-Tree, I don't think
> there's any practical way in SQL. If you can use a
> binary tree, there are ways. The most convenient is
> Joe
Kenneth McDonald wrote:
This cannot be done efficiently (at least not elegantly) with
explicit indexes. For example, let's say I'm using integer
indexes to define the order, and I have a table with one
million records. If I insert a new record halfway through
the table, then I have to update the
> You might search the list archive and also try a
> Google search on 'celko nested set' and 'adjacency
> list' -- or even just 'sql tree'.
Try also http://www.dbazine.com/tropashko4.shtml
Hugh
> ...I'd like to use a table as a "pure" BTree ...
If you mean a general multi-way B-Tree, I don't think
there's any practical way in SQL. If you can use a
binary tree, there are ways. The most convenient is
Joe Celko's method, which he calls nested sets. The
other design is usually called an
6 matches
Mail list logo
