Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F4F632A1A
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  8 Apr 2010 11:56:30 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 38255-06 for
	<pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  8 Apr 2010 14:56:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF9A632982
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 Apr 2010 11:56:19 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51])
	by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <robjsargent@gmail.com>)
	id 1Nzt9U-0002dm-3f; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:56:16 -0600
Received: from [208.187.158.94] (helo=[172.16.1.233])
	by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <robjsargent@gmail.com>)
	id 1Nzt9T-0000kS-WA; Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:56:16 -0600
Message-ID: <4BBDEF35.6040308@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:59:01 -0600
From: Rob Sargent <robjsargent@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100228 SUSE/3.0.3-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Table Design for Hierarchical Data
References: <n2i5ab13581004061033j4ed25734xd0504cb95a1fc092@mail.gmail.com>
	<201004071139.42140.achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
	<4BBCEC03.3050100@gmail.com>
	<201004080956.06446.achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <201004080956.06446.achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-XM-SPF: eid=; ; ; mid=; ; ; hst=in01.mta.xmission.com; ; ;
 ip=208.187.158.94;
	; ; frm=robjsargent@gmail.com; ; ; spf=neutral
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 208.187.158.94
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, rsargent@amirsys.com
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: robjsargent@gmail.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in01.mta.xmission.com);
	SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201004/31
X-Sequence-Number: 33958

The "parent" node in a genealogy is the mother-father tuple, so given
that as a singularity it still fits a tree.

On 04/08/2010 12:56 AM, Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
> Στις Wednesday 07 April 2010 23:33:07 ο/η Yeb Havinga έγραψε:
>> Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
>>> Στις Wednesday 07 April 2010 11:06:44 ο/η Yeb Havinga έγραψε:
>>>   
>>>> Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>> You could also consider the genealogical approach, e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The parents of any node to the root, i.e. the path of any node to the root are depicted as
>>>>> parents[0] : immediate parent
>>>>> parents[1] : immediate parent of the above parent
>>>>>   
>>>>>       
>>>> What I have more than one parent?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Then it is no longer neither a tree, nor a hierarchical structure, but rather a graph.
>>> This a totally different problem.
>>>   
>> My question was actually an attempt to point at the inability of what 
>> you call the 'genealogical approach' database design to store 
>> information of more than one parent.
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that we should change our definition of trees ADT, just because it does not
> fit the mere detail that humans have two parents?
> Or are you just suggesting that the "genealogical" term is inaccurate?
> 
> Take a look here: www.tetilab.com/roberto/pgsql/postgres-trees.pdf
> 
>>
>> regards,
>> Yeb Havinga
>>
>>
> 
> 
>