Re: PEARtree

Jens Wolk wrote: > > Tomas V.V.Cox wrote: > > The Tree library should be a able to store its structure through a > interface. The meaning of the above mentioned reference can be any - > a primary key in a table, a path to a file and so on. This way > the library can be used for any kind of data. Ok, I misunderstand the idea. The tree doesn't store the data, only pointers to it. > To think of the leaves and nodes as classes extending DB_storage was probably not > a good idea: each DB_storage descendant invokes its own SELECT > statement on the database. This could lead to performance problems > with large trees. Correct? If we look at the comments tree handler of slashcode or phpslash, you will see exactly what you are saying. There is a main select that returns the list of comments and then there is one more select per each comment. Of course there would be a reason for do it in that way (perhaps someone of you can explain me why). In a weblog I developed time ago, I prefered to store all the comments data in an array an order it by a recursive function (more memory cosumption but very very fast). I'm friend of this last idea for a tree class, but perhaps some guru can say me where I'm wrong :). Finally we will get: a dependant method to fill the tree with pointers, common methods to play with the tree and another dependant method to save it back to the original source. So? Tomas V.V.Cox