On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:05, David Harkness <davi...@highgearmedia.com> wrote: > Thanks for the link. That article proposes an interesting way to organize > the categories. Have you implemented this in the wild? Clearly the design > would work as it's pretty simple, and I like that it removes the need for > recursive queries.
I am also interested in knowing if this approach is used in any production code. > Dotan, the Venn diagrams are just used to explain the concept. If you use > the code to determine the left and right values, you can ignore the diagrams > entirely. As long as you're not adding/removing categories every minute, > having to recalculate left and right values isn't that big of a deal. I understood that. My concern is exactly with adding new nodes. There is no incrementor (++i) in SQL, so knowingly coding a solution that will require incrementing two fields in half the database rows seems irresponsible. > Also, there's no reason you couldn't keep the parent_id field with the > nested sets. It would come in handy for certain types of queries, though > it's not necessary. That is true. I could store both methods, and experiment to see which is preferable. But what a mess this would be if the two methods go out of sync! Isn't there a name for that in SQL, something along the lines of not storing the same data in two places lest one should change and not the other? The term escapes me. >> I disagree. The method I proposed can be extended to any depth, and any >> leaf or branch can be retrieved with a single query. > > The nested set method can be extended to any depth, and it pays off more the > larger the hierarchy grows. While you can retrieve any branch (all > ancestors) of a node with a single SQL query, the SQL engine itself actually > must perform a recursive query meaning multiple hits on the parent_id index. That pays off more? For the guy writing code or for the database memory requirement? >> I suppose for retrievals this structure has advantages, but unless >> MySQL has a ++ operator (or better yet, one that adds or subtracts 2 >> from an int) then it looks to be a pain to add nodes. > > ++ or += wouldn't be any better here than x = x + 2. Once you're modifying > indexed values, you'll pay a much higher price writing to disk than += could > ever save you in CPU cycles. The beauty is that inserting a node requires > only two update statements that will fix *all* categories that need to be > adjusted. Only two update statements, but they are affecting on average half the database's rows! > Adding categories to the hierarchical model is definitely faster > so it comes down to your insert-to-select ratio. Moving a subtree is also > much easier with the hierarchical model. Which do you call the hierarchical model? That term is not used in the linked article. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php