From: | Antonio Fiol Bonnín <fiol(at)w3ping(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Micah Yoder <yodermk(at)home(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christian Meunier <jelan(at)magelo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Storing a tree |
Date: | 2001-11-10 15:08:46 |
Message-ID: | 3BED42FE.B52E65B7@w3ping.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-jdbc |
If you consider the approach using multiple trees, it may have quite a good
performance even for something like a threaded message board, if you think
of each thread as a different tree. Then trees are not enormous, and so
updates would not be so slow.
Performance will be poor, however, when updating very large trees.
Antonio Fiol
Micah Yoder wrote:
> > This approach will be two to three orders of magnitude faster than the
> > adjacency list model for subtree and aggregate operations.
>
> That's great, thanks for posting that!
>
> I take it this would NOT work well on things that are updated often, like
> threaded Net message boards with hundreds of thousands of messages...
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2001-11-10 17:15:19 | Re: Storing a tree |
Previous Message | AZIE | 2001-11-10 10:51:54 | win98 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Michel POURE | 2001-11-10 17:15:19 | Re: Storing a tree |
Previous Message | Nick Fankhauser | 2001-11-10 12:48:55 | Re: JDBC Connection |