Re: [xsl] Theory question: Node trees and SQL.

["Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@xxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry I misundersood the question..

Regards,
Mukul

On 7/5/06, MrDemeanour <mrdemeanour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> > On 7/4/06, Phillip B Oldham <phillip.oldham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to ask what in your opinion is the best way to store trees
> >> in SQL for use with XSL translation.
> >
> > I think we can naturally imagine the relational database as an XML
> > tree, where we would see the tables, rows, and columns as elements in
> >  the XML document.
> >
> > For e.g. a list of employees (an example taken from Oracle RDBMS
> > docs) can be modeled as the XML structure:
> >
> > <EMPLOYEES> <ROW> <EMPLOYEE_ID>205</EMPLOYEE_ID>
> > <LAST_NAME>Higgins</LAST_NAME> <SALARY>12000</SALARY> ..<!-- other
> > columns --> </ROW> ... <!-- other rows --> </EMPLOYEES>
> >
> > This could be stored in the relational database as an EMPLOYEE table.
> >
> Yes; but that's the opposite of what the OP asked. You have answered the
> question "What is the best way to represent a SQL table as
> tree-structured XML".
>
> Relational databases are (by design) not hierarchical in nature. They
> are unsuited to representing arbitrary tree-structured data.
>
> Once upon a time there was a variety of different database models in
> common use, one of which was sometimes known as a Hierarchical Database.
> Over the course of about five years in the early 'eighties, the
> relational model more-or-less wiped the floor with the opposition,
> leaving the older database models as niche technologies.
>
> The hierarchical model survives in the form of LDAP; however LDAP itself
> is not a database model, rather it's an access mechanism that relies on
> some other storage technology - often Berkley DB.
>
> --
> Jack.