Very large collections are best thought of a graphs, IMO, because there are usually many types of connections between them - depending of course on the type and intended use of the entries. However, treelike *views* into the data are very often much better for a human to work with. With large collections, it can take a long time to create a view from scratch, so it is helpful to create the most important ones in advance. In the database world, these creation of such views are helped by indexes, temporary tables, and database views. In Python (and other languages that have native map structures), dictionaries can play that role.
With increasing size, finding something becomes harder. It may well be that for Leo, once it can work with very large numbers of nodes, that we will need new and faster ways to find items and peruse them. Another issue of size is the amount of data that a single node can hold. I recently crashed Leo by trying to read some 80 megabytes of text into the body of a node. I was curious how fast it could do a search and replace on that much data, but I didn't find out because of the crash. Of course, we are currently limited by Qt's capabilities, and Leo may never need to do such a thing, so it may not matter. On Sunday, October 31, 2021 at 2:50:58 AM UTC-4 rengel wrote: > On Saturday, October 30, 2021 at 12:49:33 PM UTC+2 Edward K. Ream wrote: > > >> My challenge is to try to understand how one might profitably use very >> large outlines. I have no clear pictures in mind :-) >> >> Some things come to my mind: > > What questions do you have to ask to get a clearer picture? > > What is a 'very large outline'? > - You surely don't think of millions of hierarchy levels but millions of > leaves (endpoints, items without children). > > In his book 'Information Anxiety' (at Amazon > <https://www.amazon.com/Information-Anxiety-Richard-Saul-Wurman/dp/0553348566/ref=pd_sbs_1/141-3618587-2451749?pd_rd_w=dOmhl&pf_rd_p=3676f086-9496-4fd7-8490-77cf7f43f846&pf_rd_r=DN7ZZT5T6J66BK9FAEKV&pd_rd_r=fb994c7d-d673-413d-8951-c7f8dc833c30&pd_rd_wg=YbBmO&pd_rd_i=0553348566&psc=1>), > > Richard Saul Wurman claims, that there are only 5 ways to organize > Information: > 1. Category (concepts, types) > 2. Time (historical events, diary; but also processes, step-by-step > procedures)) > 3. Location (country, state, county, city, etc.) > 4. Alphabet (dictionary, telephone directory) > 5. Continuum (organization by magnitude, small -> large, cheap -> > expensive, etc.) > > Which large quantities of things are best managed by a relative flat > hierarchy of these organizational principles?. > > Which very complex and/or large domains/problems/artefacts/collections are > best described by tree-like structures? > > Very abstractly, large outlines are useful everywhere where one uses some > hierarchy to classify large quantities of things. > - Dewey Decimal System to classify media (books, articles, etc.) > - plant and animal taxonomies used in biology > - bill of materials in industrial production > - Yellow Pages > - Population registries by country, state, county, city, etc. > > Reinhard > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/0b612268-9a3f-4719-886b-3dd270193da0n%40googlegroups.com.
