It seems to me that the question at hand isn't hierarchial entities, per se. We have quite a few options for representing them and any will do, truthfully.
It is the operations on them which pose issues. Notably, how do we make our queries for decendants cost-effective? I say use whatever representation feels comfortablee to you. Other issues you may deal with are a matter of indexing and other operations both important and separate from the exact representation. If the need is "give me all of this node's decendants" then we may create simple index entries mapping a node to each of its decendants and mmay be in a group without impacting the nodes themselves or other nodes' decendant indexes. On Oct 31, 2008 3:21 PM, "Sal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, entity groups should be small since 'touching' an entity in the group/path/hierarchy, blocks the whole group. Entity groups are really only meant to be used in situations where you need transaction support. In fact, quoting the GAE documentation, "Only use entity groups when they are needed for transactions. For other relationships between entities, use ReferenceProperty properties and Key values". On Oct 31, 11:23 am, yejun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think I have read somewhere in documents, ... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subs... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
