When I said "flat database" I was simply referring to the fact that I was using a single table to represent nested data. I'm talking about a relational database too.
> Anyhow, I'm using a single table with a parent node in each row. If parent is null, it becomes the root, other wise it would become the child of the linked parent. Would you consider this a good / bad design? and would it work for this model? Yes, this is exactly the model that I was referring to. You may find that you need to use two tables. The first table describes the recursive parent / child relationship and the second describes the leaf nodes. Think about ebay items in a category hierarchy where "toaster" is the item and "household --> electricals --> small electricals" are the categories. In this case you may need 2 tables (categories and items). On Tuesday, 7 February 2012, George Christman <gchrist...@cardaddy.com> wrote: > Hi Lance, thanks a bunch, really appreciate it. I'd like to ask you a quick > question about my db design. I'm using a relational db with no flat database > experience, so not sure how well the two relate. > > Anyhow, I'm using a single table with a parent node in each row. If parent > is null, it becomes the root, other wise it would become the child of the > linked parent. Would you consider this a good / bad design? and would it > work for this model? > > Thanks, > George > > -- > View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Tapestry-TreeGrid-tp5462126p5463173.html > Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
