Home/ Questions/Q 6096697
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-23T12:57:29+00:00

I’m starting a project and I’m in the designing phase: I.e., I haven’t decided

  • 0

I’m starting a project and I’m in the designing phase: I.e., I haven’t decided yet on which db framework I’m going to use. I’m going to have code that creates a “forest” like structure. That is, many trees, where each tree is a standard: nodes and edges. After the code creates these trees I want to save them in the db. (and then pull them out eventually)

The naive approach to representing the data in the db is a relational db with two tables: nodes and edges. That is, the nodes table will have a node id, node data, etc.. And the edges table will be a mapping of node id to node id.

Is there a better approach? Or given the (limited) assumptions I’m giving this is the best approach? How about if we add an assumption that the trees are relatively small – is it better to save the whole tree as a blob in the db? Which type of db should I use in that case? Please comment on speed/scalability.

Thanks

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    I showed a solution similar to your nodes & edges tables, in my answer to the StackOverflow question: What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree? I call this solution "Closure Table".

    I did a presentation on different methods of storing and using trees in SQL, Models for Hierarchical Data with SQL and PHP. I demonstrated that with the right indexes (depending on the queries you need to run), the Closure Table design can have very good performance, even over large collections of edges (about 500K edges in my demo).

    I also covered the design in my book, SQL Antipatterns Volume 1: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.

    • 0