Hi Don, To be honest with you - i dont know - but think it is not...
We use it to solve the problem with hierarchy relations - but it is nowhere "visible" to users in the app... Our internal rule is to use ids in ltree structure to solve many others problems, actually to easy get, actual category info... From any point... So if needed, it is easy from 1.2.3.4, get: TOP.Groceries.Food.Herbs & Spices if needed... Each of them are actually category names in the table... Kind regards, Misa On Saturday, February 23, 2013, Don Parris wrote: > Misa, > > Is it possible to use spaces in the ltree path, like so: > TOP.Groceries.Food.Herbs & Spices > > Or do the elements of the path have to use underscores and dashes? > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Misa Simic <misa.si...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Don, > > Yes, its better to use it in category table... > > Bryan, how many levels there will be - we dont know... > > With one table - and ltree is solved all cases... > > To add new subcategory user just picks the parent category... So it is > easy to add chain ring to gear... As category... > > In another transaction table is category_id, amount... > > > Don already posted query for sum... In these case just category and > transaction table should be joined sum amount, group by functions on > lpath....(depending what is the goal...) > > Kind Regards, > > Misa > > > > On Saturday, February 23, 2013, Bryan L Nuse wrote: > > > > This works fine: > test_ltree=> SELECT path, trans_amt FROM testcat; > path | trans_amt > -----------------------------------------+----------- > TOP.Transportation.Auto.Fuel | 50.00 > TOP.Transportation.Auto.Maintenance | 30.00 > TOP.Transportation.Auto.Fuel | 25.00 > TOP.Transportation.Bicycle.Gear | 40.00 > TOP.Transportation.Bicycle.Gear | 20.00 > TOP.Transportation.Fares.Bus | 10.00 > TOP.Transportation.Fares.Train | 5.00 > TOP.Groceries.Food.Beverages | 30.00 > TOP.Groceries.Food.Fruit_Veggies | 40.00 > TOP.Groceries.Food.Meat_Fish | 80.00 > TOP.Groceries.Food.Grains_Cereals | 30.00 > TOP.Groceries.Beverages.Alcohol.Beer | 25.00 > TOP.Groceries.Beverages.Alcohol.Spirits | 10.00 > TOP.Groceries.Beverages.Alcohol.Wine | 50.00 > TOP.Groceries.Beverages.Juice | 45.00 > TOP.Groceries.Beverages.Other | 15.00 > (16 rows) > > > So if I want to see: > TOP.Groceries | 240.00 > TOP.Transportation | 180.00 > > > > Hello Don, > > Perhaps I am missing something about what your constraints are, or what > you're trying to achieve, but is there any reason you could not use a > series of joined tables indicating parent-child relationships? The > following example follows that in your previous posts. Note that this > approach (as given) will not work if branches stemming from the same node > are different lengths. That is, if you have costs associated with > "Transportation.Bicycle.Gear", you could not also have a category > "Transportation.Bicycle.Gear.Chain_ring". (To add the latter category, > you'd have to put costs from the former under something like > "Transportation.Bicycle.Gear.General" -- or modify the approach.) However, > lengthening the "Alcohol" branches, e.g., by tacking on a level5 table > would be easy. Notice that level3 and level4 are not true look-up > tables, since they may contain duplicate cat values. > > If I'm off base, by all means specify just how. > > Regards, > Bryan > > -------------------------------------------------- > > CREATE TABLE level1 ( > cat text PRIMARY KEY > ); > > CREATE TABLE level2 ( > cat text PRIMARY KEY, > parent text REFERENCES level1(cat) > ); > > -- > D.C. Parris, FMP, Linux+, ESL Certificate > Minister, Security/FM Coordinator, Free Software Advocate > http://dcparris.net/ > <https://www.xing.com/profile/Don_Parris><http://www.linkedin.com/in/dcparris> > GPG Key ID: F5E179BE >
