On Sat, 2005-01-08 at 00:11 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote: > BTW, I was thinking that my package hierarchy would pretty much be lain > out like > > Category->SubCategory->Group->Data
Why would you think this? Did you read a book on relations or databases (as already suggested) yet? > Where Data would be a table of package name, version, files, etc, some > of which would have to be tables. This places a table (data) inside a > table (group) inside a table (subcategory) inside a table (category) > logically. No, they would not have to. Go get a book on the relational model (just about any decent book on databases ought to at least have a primer on it). What you want is called a "join". > SQL databases, can they handle this literal hierarchy, or do I not have > the ability to embed tables in tables? Most SQL engines do not support tree-structures inherently, although there are several very good ways of getting at it for most applications. However, the application you describe does not appear to require a tree structure. It can trivially be satisfied using a few relations. > All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the > Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated. It may be your right to put your comments in the public domain, but it is not your right to put my comments in the public domain.
