Nested sets are so rad. I fell in love with them back when I read joe celko's "sql for smarties" and its companion book "tree and hierarchies in sql". Way to think outside the box. It just gets a bit more complex when it comes to moving nodes around, but if you have the sprocs handy, you're in business.
As far as the hierarchy datatype, I've only played with it briefly to study for a cert. It works well, as far as I remember. While under the hood it's pretty much a binary representation of materialized path implementation, the fact that it's a CLR object means it comes with a bunch of helper methods out of the box. Very much like spatial data, if you've ever worked with it (again, awesome). What I am wondering is why you are considering the change if you are happy with the speed and stability of your current implementation (or are you just curious?). Also consider the fact that using the hierarchyID will make it harder to move to a different DBMS or a pre-2008 server if the need arises. To answer your question based on my experimentation and readings, no, MS is not full of it, and yes it's a step in the right direction. Just like CF has always kept adding support for new stuff (xpath, cfdocument...), microsoft is doing the same and that's a good thing. On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Mike K <afpwebwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevan Stannard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
