From: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |
Date: | 2008-05-18 23:30:06 |
Message-ID: | 4830BBFE.5010908@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
>> Can we get the rows in tree order, please? I.e. something like this:
>>
>
> Is ordering by tree order defined in the standard when no explicit
> order is given? If not, it probably returns them in the order they
> are pulled up, which might be the fastest way
+1 for the fastest way, which I expect to often be "find all level 1
matches", "find all level 2 matches", ... If ORDER BY is important, it
should be specified (although it may be difficult or impossible to
properly represent ORDER BY for a tree? not sure?) I think most uses of
recursive require extra client side code to deal with anyways, so only
relative order is important (order within a particular branch).
There are things I'd like to use this for right now. Currently I use
plpgsql procedures to implement my own recursion. :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Agro-annuaire | 2008-05-19 02:04:02 | Agro-annuaire.com vous invite à nous rendre visite au Salon SMA-Med Food 2008 du 20 au 24 mai |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-05-18 23:02:04 | Re: WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-05-19 04:21:20 | Re: WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2008-05-18 23:02:04 | Re: WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1 |