Aaron
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/248915
It sounds like you're hinting that the adjacency model is not the way to go? I
should have specified that I'm not building this from scratch. I'm working with
pre-existing structures and code (pre-MX and cfcs). So any changes must coexist
with the existing structure (adjacency model) for now.
I'm not arguing the merits of one method over the other. I agree there are
different advantages to each approach. I think the original designers went
with the adjacency model because they expected a lot of structural changes
which can be a more expensive operation when using nested sets. But as you
hinted, querying a hierarchy is usually easier with nested sets :)
Truthfully I'm not always a fan of the adjacency model. But thats what I've got
to work with right now. If you have any thoughts about converting it to
something more managable or performant without drastically disturbing the
existing structure I'm "all ears".
Janet
--
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
always stay connected to friends.
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at
http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm
CFCDev is supported by:
Katapult Media, Inc.
We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock!
www.katapultmedia.com
An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
