From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Zobel <jzobel(at)heute-morgen(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Limits of SQL |
Date: | 2005-06-02 19:46:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0506021244200.5624-100000@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
You mean, you want to be able to say something like:
select isConnected(a,b)
and get back a true/false, or maybe the path?
That seems quite doable in SQL, assuming you either store those results
and simply use sql to retrieve them, or use a stored proc to compute the
result each time.
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Joachim Zobel wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am looking for a way to write a SELECT that finds connectivity
> components of a graph or at least for one that given two nodes
> determines if there is a path between them. It seems that this is not
> possible, no matter what graph representation I choose. Which constructs
> from set theory are missing in SQL? Set of all subsets is one I am
> missing, or can it be done somehow?
>
> Is anybody else thinking about the limits of SQL? As often I am probably
> not the first to ask these questions. Any pointers?
>
> Sincerely,
> Joachim
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-06-02 19:49:03 | Re: Limits of SQL |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-06-02 19:33:24 | Re: [SQL] index row size 2728 exceeds btree maximum, 27 |