get parents and children of tree folder structure in my sql < 8 and no CTEsWhat is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree?MySQL “WITH” clauseHierarchical queries in MySQLWhat are the options for storing hierarchical data in a relational database?Deletion of a parent node but not the children with awesome_nested_set?Select parent if all children meet criteriaMySQL how to find parent with exact set of children?SQL create table and set auto increment value without Alter tableReferencing table with generated primary keysSQLAlchemy one-to-one relationship creates multiple rowsSQL CTE - Recursion Slow due to children of children of children…:How to get either a child or a parent record SQLTwo tables not sure if i use or/in/two select statments/ join/union

Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?

Theorists sure want true answers to this!

Is it possible to create a QR code using text?

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?

Car headlights in a world without electricity

If a warlock makes a Dancing Sword their pact weapon, is there a way to prevent it from disappearing if it's farther away for more than a minute?

How does a dynamic QR code work?

Why are UK visa biometrics appointments suspended at USCIS Application Support Centers?

How to install cross-compiler on Ubuntu 18.04?

What historical events would have to change in order to make 19th century "steampunk" technology possible?

Is it "common practice in Fourier transform spectroscopy to multiply the measured interferogram by an apodizing function"? If so, why?

My ex-girlfriend uses my Apple ID to log in to her iPad. Do I have to give her my Apple ID password to reset it?

What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?

Getting extremely large arrows with tikzcd

How badly should I try to prevent a user from XSSing themselves?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

How many wives did king shaul have

How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?

Forgetting the musical notes while performing in concert

Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?

Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?

Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?

How to Prove P(a) → ∀x(P(x) ∨ ¬(x = a)) using Natural Deduction



get parents and children of tree folder structure in my sql


What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree?MySQL “WITH” clauseHierarchical queries in MySQLWhat are the options for storing hierarchical data in a relational database?Deletion of a parent node but not the children with awesome_nested_set?Select parent if all children meet criteriaMySQL how to find parent with exact set of children?SQL create table and set auto increment value without Alter tableReferencing table with generated primary keysSQLAlchemy one-to-one relationship creates multiple rowsSQL CTE - Recursion Slow due to children of children of children…:How to get either a child or a parent record SQLTwo tables not sure if i use or/in/two select statments/ join/union













14















I have a folder table that joins to itself on an id, parent_id relationship:



CREATE TABLE folders (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);

INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) VALUES(1, 'root', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(2, 'one', 1);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(3, 'target', 2);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(4, 'child one', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(5, 'child two', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(6, 'root 2', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(7, 'other child one', 6);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(8, 'other child two', 6);


I want a query that returns all the parents of that record, right back to the route and any children.



So if I ask for folder with id=3, I get records: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am stuck how to get the parents.



The version of MYSQL is 5.7 and there are no immediate plans to upgrade so sadly CTEs are not an option.



I have created this sql fiddle










share|improve this question

















This question had a bounty worth +300
reputation from dagda1 that ended ended at 2019-04-01 22:20:57Z">yesterday. Grace period has ended


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
















  • What nesting level does folders might have?

    – Maxim Fedorov
    Mar 27 at 7:34











  • @MaximFedorov there is no limitation on how deep they can go but I don't see it getting too crazy

    – dagda1
    Mar 27 at 8:12






  • 1





    "I am stuck how to get the parents" - But you know how to get the "children"? What about children of children? Don't you need them?

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 29 at 22:23















14















I have a folder table that joins to itself on an id, parent_id relationship:



CREATE TABLE folders (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);

INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) VALUES(1, 'root', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(2, 'one', 1);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(3, 'target', 2);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(4, 'child one', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(5, 'child two', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(6, 'root 2', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(7, 'other child one', 6);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(8, 'other child two', 6);


I want a query that returns all the parents of that record, right back to the route and any children.



So if I ask for folder with id=3, I get records: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am stuck how to get the parents.



The version of MYSQL is 5.7 and there are no immediate plans to upgrade so sadly CTEs are not an option.



I have created this sql fiddle










share|improve this question

















This question had a bounty worth +300
reputation from dagda1 that ended ended at 2019-04-01 22:20:57Z">yesterday. Grace period has ended


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
















  • What nesting level does folders might have?

    – Maxim Fedorov
    Mar 27 at 7:34











  • @MaximFedorov there is no limitation on how deep they can go but I don't see it getting too crazy

    – dagda1
    Mar 27 at 8:12






  • 1





    "I am stuck how to get the parents" - But you know how to get the "children"? What about children of children? Don't you need them?

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 29 at 22:23













14












14








14


3






I have a folder table that joins to itself on an id, parent_id relationship:



CREATE TABLE folders (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);

INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) VALUES(1, 'root', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(2, 'one', 1);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(3, 'target', 2);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(4, 'child one', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(5, 'child two', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(6, 'root 2', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(7, 'other child one', 6);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(8, 'other child two', 6);


I want a query that returns all the parents of that record, right back to the route and any children.



So if I ask for folder with id=3, I get records: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am stuck how to get the parents.



The version of MYSQL is 5.7 and there are no immediate plans to upgrade so sadly CTEs are not an option.



I have created this sql fiddle










share|improve this question
















I have a folder table that joins to itself on an id, parent_id relationship:



CREATE TABLE folders (
id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);

INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) VALUES(1, 'root', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(2, 'one', 1);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(3, 'target', 2);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(4, 'child one', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(5, 'child two', 3);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(6, 'root 2', null);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(7, 'other child one', 6);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, parent_id) values(8, 'other child two', 6);


I want a query that returns all the parents of that record, right back to the route and any children.



So if I ask for folder with id=3, I get records: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am stuck how to get the parents.



The version of MYSQL is 5.7 and there are no immediate plans to upgrade so sadly CTEs are not an option.



I have created this sql fiddle







mysql sql hierarchical-data






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 28 at 14:11









Bill Karwin

384k64520678




384k64520678










asked Mar 21 at 20:34









dagda1dagda1

8,82432132269




8,82432132269






This question had a bounty worth +300
reputation from dagda1 that ended ended at 2019-04-01 22:20:57Z">yesterday. Grace period has ended


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.








This question had a bounty worth +300
reputation from dagda1 that ended ended at 2019-04-01 22:20:57Z">yesterday. Grace period has ended


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.














  • What nesting level does folders might have?

    – Maxim Fedorov
    Mar 27 at 7:34











  • @MaximFedorov there is no limitation on how deep they can go but I don't see it getting too crazy

    – dagda1
    Mar 27 at 8:12






  • 1





    "I am stuck how to get the parents" - But you know how to get the "children"? What about children of children? Don't you need them?

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 29 at 22:23

















  • What nesting level does folders might have?

    – Maxim Fedorov
    Mar 27 at 7:34











  • @MaximFedorov there is no limitation on how deep they can go but I don't see it getting too crazy

    – dagda1
    Mar 27 at 8:12






  • 1





    "I am stuck how to get the parents" - But you know how to get the "children"? What about children of children? Don't you need them?

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 29 at 22:23
















What nesting level does folders might have?

– Maxim Fedorov
Mar 27 at 7:34





What nesting level does folders might have?

– Maxim Fedorov
Mar 27 at 7:34













@MaximFedorov there is no limitation on how deep they can go but I don't see it getting too crazy

– dagda1
Mar 27 at 8:12





@MaximFedorov there is no limitation on how deep they can go but I don't see it getting too crazy

– dagda1
Mar 27 at 8:12




1




1





"I am stuck how to get the parents" - But you know how to get the "children"? What about children of children? Don't you need them?

– Paul Spiegel
Mar 29 at 22:23





"I am stuck how to get the parents" - But you know how to get the "children"? What about children of children? Don't you need them?

– Paul Spiegel
Mar 29 at 22:23












9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















6














In MySQL 8.0, you can make use of the Recursive Common Table Expressions to adress this use case.



The following query gives you the parents of a given record (including the record itself):



with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
select id, title, parent_id
from folders
where id = 3
union all
select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
from folders f
inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
)
select * from parent_cte;



| id | title | parent_id |
| --- | ------ | --------- |
| 3 | target | 2 |
| 2 | one | 1 |
| 1 | root | |


And here is a slightly different query, that returns the children tree of a given record:



with recursive children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
select id, title, parent_id
from folders
where parent_id = 3
union all
select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
from folders f
inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
)
select * from children_cte;



| id | title | parent_id |
| --- | --------- | --------- |
| 4 | child one | 3 |
| 5 | child two | 3 |


Both queriers can be combined as follows:



with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
select id, title, parent_id
from folders
where id = 3
union all
select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
from folders f
inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
),
children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
select id, title, parent_id
from folders
where parent_id = 3
union all
select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
from folders f
inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
)
select * from parent_cte
union all select * from children_cte;



| id | title | parent_id |
| --- | --------- | --------- |
| 3 | target | 2 |
| 2 | one | 1 |
| 1 | root | |
| 4 | child one | 3 |
| 5 | child two | 3 |


Demo on DB Fiddle






share|improve this answer























  • Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

    – EternalHour
    Mar 21 at 21:48






  • 1





    @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

    – GMB
    Mar 21 at 21:51











  • It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

    – Bill Karwin
    Mar 21 at 21:52






  • 4





    it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

    – dagda1
    Mar 22 at 8:54


















5














In your table design, ID and PARENT_ID corresponds to the "Adjacency List Model" for storing a tree.



There is another design, called the "Nested Set Model", which makes it easier to perform the operations you want here.



See this excellent article from Mike Hillyer describing both:
managing-hierarchical-data-in-mysql



In summary:



The tree is stored in a table like:



CREATE TABLE nested_category (
category_id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
lft INT NOT NULL,
rgt INT NOT NULL
);


Finding the path from the root to a given node (here, 'FLASH'):



SELECT parent.name
FROM nested_category AS node,
nested_category AS parent
WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
AND node.name = 'FLASH'
ORDER BY parent.lft;


Finding all children of a given node (here 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'):



SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
FROM nested_category AS node,
nested_category AS parent,
nested_category AS sub_parent,
(
SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - 1) AS depth
FROM nested_category AS node,
nested_category AS parent
WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
AND node.name = 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'
GROUP BY node.name
ORDER BY node.lft
)AS sub_tree
WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
AND sub_parent.name = sub_tree.name
GROUP BY node.name
HAVING depth <= 1
ORDER BY node.lft;


After renaming to your folders table



  • TABLE nested_category -> TABLE folders

  • Column category_id -> Column id

  • Column name -> Column title

The solution is:



CREATE TABLE folders (
id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
title VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
lft INT NOT NULL,
rgt INT NOT NULL
);

INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(1, 'root', 1, 10);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(2, 'one', 2, 9);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(3, 'target', 3, 8);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(4, 'child one', 4, 5);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(5, 'child two', 6, 7);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(6, 'root 2', 11, 16);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(7, 'other child one', 12, 13);
INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(8, 'other child two', 14, 15);


Path to the target:



SELECT parent.title
FROM folders AS node,
folders AS parent
WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
AND node.title = 'target'
ORDER BY parent.lft;


Target children:



SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
FROM folders AS node,
folders AS parent,
folders AS sub_parent,
(
SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - 1) AS depth
FROM folders AS node,
folders AS parent
WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
AND node.title = 'target'
GROUP BY node.title
ORDER BY node.lft
)AS sub_tree
WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
AND sub_parent.title = sub_tree.title
GROUP BY node.title
HAVING depth <= 1
ORDER BY node.lft;


See sqlfiddle



To get all the data in a single query, a union should do.






share|improve this answer




















  • 1





    Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

    – Jiri Tousek
    Mar 27 at 15:10











  • @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

    – Marc Alff
    Mar 28 at 16:03







  • 1





    Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

    – emix
    Mar 28 at 21:42












  • Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 30 at 0:48











  • Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

    – surpavan
    Mar 30 at 22:00


















2














I've solved this in the past with a second table, which contains the transitive closure of all paths through the tree.



mysql> CREATE TABLE folders_closure (
ancestor INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
descendant INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (ancestor, descendant),
depth INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL
);


Load this table with tuples of all ancestor-descendant pairs, including the ones where a node in the tree references itself (path of length 0).



mysql> INSERT INTO folders_closure VALUES
(1,1,0), (2,2,0), (3,3,0), (4,4,0), (5,5,0), (6,6,0),
(1,2,1), (2,3,1), (3,4,1), (3,5,1), (1,4,2), (1,5,2),
(6,7,1), (6,8,1);


Now you can query the tree below a given node by querying all the paths that start at the top node, and join that path's descendant to your folders table.



mysql> SELECT d.id, d.title, cl.depth FROM folders_closure cl
JOIN folders d ON d.id=cl.descendant WHERE cl.ancestor=1;
+----+-----------+-------+
| id | title | depth |
+----+-----------+-------+
| 1 | root | 0 |
| 2 | one | 1 |
| 4 | child one | 2 |
| 5 | child two | 2 |
+----+-----------+-------+


I see many people recommend the Nested Sets solution which was introduced in 1992, and became popular after Joe Celko included it in his book SQL for Smarties in 1995. But I don't like the Nested Sets technique, because the numbers aren't actually references to the primary keys of the nodes in your tree, and it requires renumbering many rows when you add or delete a node.



I wrote about the closure table method in What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree? and some of my other answers with the hierarchical-data tag.



I did a presentation about it: Models for Hierarchical Data.



I also covered this in a chapter of my book SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.






share|improve this answer

























  • How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

    – Marc Alff
    Mar 28 at 16:01






  • 1





    In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

    – Bill Karwin
    Mar 28 at 16:17











  • I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

    – Bill Karwin
    Mar 28 at 16:26











  • @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 29 at 22:17











  • Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

    – Bill Karwin
    Mar 29 at 22:45


















2














If it's guaranteed that child nodes always have a higher id than it's parent, then you could use user variables.



Get descendants:



select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) as dummy
from folders f
cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
where find_in_set(parent_id, @l)
order by id


Result:



id | title | parent_id | dummy
---|-----------|-----------|------
4 | child one | 3 | 3,4
5 | child two | 3 | 3,4,5


Get ancestors (including itself):



select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, parent_id) as dummy
from folders f
cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
where find_in_set(id, @l)
order by id desc


Result:



id | title | parent_id | dummy
3 | target | 2 | 3,2
2 | one | 1 | 3,2,1
1 | root | null | 3,2,1


Demo



Note that this technique relies on undocumented evaluation order, and will not be possible in future versions.



Also it is not very performant, since both queries need a full table scan, but might be fine for smaller tables. However - for small tables I would just fetch the full table and solve the task with a recursive function in application code.



For bigger tables I would consider a more complex solution like the following stored procedure:



create procedure get_related_nodes(in in_id int)
begin
set @list = in_id;
set @parents = @list;

repeat
set @sql = '
select group_concat(id) into @children
from folders
where parent_id in (parents)
';
set @sql = replace(@sql, 'parents', @parents);
prepare stmt from @sql;
execute stmt;
set @list = concat_ws(',', @list, @children);
set @parents = @children;
until (@children is null) end repeat;

set @child = in_id;
repeat
set @sql = '
select parent_id into @parent
from folders
where id = (child)
';
set @sql = replace(@sql, 'child', @child);
prepare stmt from @sql;
execute stmt;
set @list = concat_ws(',', @parent, @list);
set @child = @parent;
until (@parent is null) end repeat;

set @sql = '
select *
from folders
where id in (list)
';
set @sql = replace(@sql, 'list', @list);
prepare stmt from @sql;
execute stmt;
end


Use it with



call get_related_nodes(3)


This will return



id | title | parent_id
---|-----------|----------
1 | root |
2 | one | 1
3 | target | 2
4 | child one | 3
5 | child two | 3


Demo



I expect this procedure to perform as good as a recursive CTE query. In any case you should have an index on parent_id.






share|improve this answer























  • Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

    – surpavan
    Mar 30 at 20:52






  • 1





    @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 30 at 20:59







  • 1





    @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 30 at 22:05






  • 1





    Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 30 at 22:09






  • 2





    Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

    – Paul Spiegel
    Mar 30 at 22:35


















2














if your parent_id comes always in ascending order then below query is the great solution.



if you get the result your id to null parent value then Please follow the link
http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/258 (When passing id = 6)
http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/259 (When passing id = 3)



SELECT * FROM folders f
WHERE id = 3
OR
(Parent_id <=3 AND Parent_id >=
(SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1)) OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0)
AND id >= (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1);


OR



You won't get your passing id to top at parent then please follow the link as below.
http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/194 (When passing id =3)
http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/208 (When passing id =6)



SELECT 
*
FROM
folders f
WHERE
id = 3 OR Parent_id <=3
OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0);





share|improve this answer

























  • please add a comment if downvote

    – Hemang Aghera
    yesterday











  • First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

    – Hemang Aghera
    yesterday











  • I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

    – Ajan Balakumaran
    yesterday











  • @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

    – Hemang Aghera
    yesterday











  • @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

    – Hadi
    yesterday


















0














You can perform an union between parent rows and child rows like this :



select title, id, @parent:=parent_id as parent from
(select @parent:=3 ) a join (select * from folders order by id desc) b where @parent=id
union select title, id, parent_id as parent from folders where parent_id=3 ORDER BY id


here a sample dbfiddle






share|improve this answer






























    0














    Note My solution is more or less same as @Marc Alff. Didn't realise it was already there before typing / preparing response in an editor.



    It is very difficult to get a query to achieve your objective (or other typical requirements of hierarchical dataset) without use of CTEs or other hierarchical query supports (e.g. prior, connect by in Oracle). This was the main driver for databases to come up with CTEs etc.



    Many many years ago when such support for modelling hierarchical entities weren't available in databases, requirements outlined by you and many other related were solved by modelling such entities slightly differently.



    The concept is simple. In essence, two more attributes are introduced in the hierarchical table (or a separate table foreign keyed into hierarchical table) called left_boundary and right_boundary (call whatever you wish after all what’s in the name). For each row the values (numbers) for these attributes are so chosen that they cover the values of these attributes for all their children. In other words, a child’s left and right boundaries will be between left and right boundaries of its parents.



    By the way of example



    enter image description here



    Creating this hierarchy used to be part of an early morning batch job or the boundaries were chosen so wide apart during design time that they were easily covering all depths of tree.



    I am going to use this solution to achieve your objective.
    Firstly I will introduce a second table (could have introduced the attributes in the same table, decided not to disturb your data model)



    CREATE TABLE folder_boundaries (
    id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
    folder_id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
    left_boundary int(10) unsigned,
    right_boundary int(10) unsigned,
    PRIMARY KEY (id),
    FOREIGN KEY (folder_id) REFERENCES folders(id)
    );


    The data for this table based on your dataset



    NSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(1, 1, 10);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(2, 2, 9);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(3, 3, 8);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(4, 4, 4);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(5, 4, 4);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(6, 21, 25);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);
    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);


    Here is the query to achieve what you are after



    select f.id, f.title
    from folders f
    join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
    where fb.left_boundary < (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
    and fb.right_boundary > (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
    union all
    select f.id, f.title
    from folders f
    join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
    where fb.left_boundary >= (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
    and fb.right_boundary <= (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)


    Result



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer






























      0














      Small code using stored procedures, tested on 5.6:



      drop procedure if exists test;
      DELIMITER //
      create procedure test(in testid int)
      begin
      DECLARE parent int;
      set parent = testid;

      drop temporary table if exists pars;
      CREATE temporary TABLE pars (
      id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
      title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
      parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
      PRIMARY KEY (id)
      );

      #For getting heirarchy
      while parent is not null do
      insert into pars
      select * from folders where id = parent;
      set parent = (select parent_id from folders where id = parent);
      end while;

      #For getting child
      insert into pars
      select * from folders where parent_id = testid;

      select * from pars;
      end //
      DELIMITER ;


      below is the call to the code:



      call test(3);


      And the output is:



      enter image description here



      The end result can be formatted with string combined as required, once we get the table, rest should be easy I guess. Also, if id can be sorted it would be great for formatting.



      Not to mention both the fields id and parent_id should be index for this to work efficiently.






      share|improve this answer






























        0














        Suppose you know the maximum depth of the tree, you could "create" a loop to get what you want:



        Get parent nodes:



        SELECT @id :=
        (
        SELECT parent_id
        FROM folders
        WHERE id = @id
        ) AS folderId, vars.id
        FROM (
        SELECT @id := 7 AS id
        ) vars
        INNER JOIN (
        SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
        UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
        UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
        UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
        WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


        Get child nodes:



        SELECT @id :=
        (
        SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(id)
        FROM folders
        WHERE FIND_IN_SET(parent_id, @id)
        ) AS folderIds, vars.id
        FROM (
        SELECT @id := 1 AS id
        ) vars
        INNER JOIN (
        SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
        UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
        UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
        UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
        WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


        This works by



        • Creating a join between a static variable subquery (SELECT @id := 1 AS id) and a static set of 10 rows in this case(maximum depth)

        • using a subquery in the select to traverse the tree and find all the parents or child nodes

        The purpose of the join is to create a result set of 10 rows, so that the subquery in the select is executed 10 times.



        Alternatively, if you do not know the maximum depth, you could replace the joined subquery with



        INNER JOIN (
        SELECT 1 FROM folder) temp


        or in order to avoid all the union selects above, use with a limit:



        INNER JOIN (
        SELECT 1 FROM folder LIMIT 100) temp


        References:
        - Hierarchical queries in MySQL






        share|improve this answer

























          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55288840%2fget-parents-and-children-of-tree-folder-structure-in-my-sql-8-and-no-ctes%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes








          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6














          In MySQL 8.0, you can make use of the Recursive Common Table Expressions to adress this use case.



          The following query gives you the parents of a given record (including the record itself):



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          )
          select * from parent_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | ------ | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |


          And here is a slightly different query, that returns the children tree of a given record:



          with recursive children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Both queriers can be combined as follows:



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          ),
          children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from parent_cte
          union all select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Demo on DB Fiddle






          share|improve this answer























          • Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

            – EternalHour
            Mar 21 at 21:48






          • 1





            @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

            – GMB
            Mar 21 at 21:51











          • It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 21 at 21:52






          • 4





            it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

            – dagda1
            Mar 22 at 8:54















          6














          In MySQL 8.0, you can make use of the Recursive Common Table Expressions to adress this use case.



          The following query gives you the parents of a given record (including the record itself):



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          )
          select * from parent_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | ------ | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |


          And here is a slightly different query, that returns the children tree of a given record:



          with recursive children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Both queriers can be combined as follows:



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          ),
          children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from parent_cte
          union all select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Demo on DB Fiddle






          share|improve this answer























          • Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

            – EternalHour
            Mar 21 at 21:48






          • 1





            @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

            – GMB
            Mar 21 at 21:51











          • It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 21 at 21:52






          • 4





            it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

            – dagda1
            Mar 22 at 8:54













          6












          6








          6







          In MySQL 8.0, you can make use of the Recursive Common Table Expressions to adress this use case.



          The following query gives you the parents of a given record (including the record itself):



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          )
          select * from parent_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | ------ | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |


          And here is a slightly different query, that returns the children tree of a given record:



          with recursive children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Both queriers can be combined as follows:



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          ),
          children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from parent_cte
          union all select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Demo on DB Fiddle






          share|improve this answer













          In MySQL 8.0, you can make use of the Recursive Common Table Expressions to adress this use case.



          The following query gives you the parents of a given record (including the record itself):



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          )
          select * from parent_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | ------ | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |


          And here is a slightly different query, that returns the children tree of a given record:



          with recursive children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Both queriers can be combined as follows:



          with recursive parent_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join parent_cte pc on f.id = pc.parent_id
          ),
          children_cte (id, title, parent_id) as (
          select id, title, parent_id
          from folders
          where parent_id = 3
          union all
          select f.id, f.title, f.parent_id
          from folders f
          inner join children_cte cc on f.parent_id = cc.id
          )
          select * from parent_cte
          union all select * from children_cte;



          | id | title | parent_id |
          | --- | --------- | --------- |
          | 3 | target | 2 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 1 | root | |
          | 4 | child one | 3 |
          | 5 | child two | 3 |


          Demo on DB Fiddle







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 21 at 21:30









          GMBGMB

          20.8k51028




          20.8k51028












          • Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

            – EternalHour
            Mar 21 at 21:48






          • 1





            @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

            – GMB
            Mar 21 at 21:51











          • It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 21 at 21:52






          • 4





            it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

            – dagda1
            Mar 22 at 8:54

















          • Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

            – EternalHour
            Mar 21 at 21:48






          • 1





            @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

            – GMB
            Mar 21 at 21:51











          • It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 21 at 21:52






          • 4





            it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

            – dagda1
            Mar 22 at 8:54
















          Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

          – EternalHour
          Mar 21 at 21:48





          Could have used this functionality years ago, wasn't aware of it.

          – EternalHour
          Mar 21 at 21:48




          1




          1





          @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

          – GMB
          Mar 21 at 21:51





          @EternalHour: you needed MySQL 8.0...

          – GMB
          Mar 21 at 21:51













          It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 21 at 21:52





          It wasn't available in MySQL until version 8.0.1, released April 2017. Other SQL products have had it for some years. See my answer to stackoverflow.com/questions/324935/mysql-with-clause/…

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 21 at 21:52




          4




          4





          it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

          – dagda1
          Mar 22 at 8:54





          it is a great answer but sadly I'm on 5.7 in the crappy SAS we are using. I can do it in code but is there a way pre CTE to do this? Any pointers at all appreciated

          – dagda1
          Mar 22 at 8:54













          5














          In your table design, ID and PARENT_ID corresponds to the "Adjacency List Model" for storing a tree.



          There is another design, called the "Nested Set Model", which makes it easier to perform the operations you want here.



          See this excellent article from Mike Hillyer describing both:
          managing-hierarchical-data-in-mysql



          In summary:



          The tree is stored in a table like:



          CREATE TABLE nested_category (
          category_id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );


          Finding the path from the root to a given node (here, 'FLASH'):



          SELECT parent.name
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'FLASH'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Finding all children of a given node (here 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'):



          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent,
          nested_category AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - 1) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'
          GROUP BY node.name
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.name = sub_tree.name
          GROUP BY node.name
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          After renaming to your folders table



          • TABLE nested_category -> TABLE folders

          • Column category_id -> Column id

          • Column name -> Column title

          The solution is:



          CREATE TABLE folders (
          id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          title VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );

          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(1, 'root', 1, 10);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(2, 'one', 2, 9);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(3, 'target', 3, 8);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(4, 'child one', 4, 5);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(5, 'child two', 6, 7);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(6, 'root 2', 11, 16);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(7, 'other child one', 12, 13);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(8, 'other child two', 14, 15);


          Path to the target:



          SELECT parent.title
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Target children:



          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent,
          folders AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - 1) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          GROUP BY node.title
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.title = sub_tree.title
          GROUP BY node.title
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          See sqlfiddle



          To get all the data in a single query, a union should do.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

            – Jiri Tousek
            Mar 27 at 15:10











          • @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:03







          • 1





            Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

            – emix
            Mar 28 at 21:42












          • Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 0:48











          • Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 22:00















          5














          In your table design, ID and PARENT_ID corresponds to the "Adjacency List Model" for storing a tree.



          There is another design, called the "Nested Set Model", which makes it easier to perform the operations you want here.



          See this excellent article from Mike Hillyer describing both:
          managing-hierarchical-data-in-mysql



          In summary:



          The tree is stored in a table like:



          CREATE TABLE nested_category (
          category_id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );


          Finding the path from the root to a given node (here, 'FLASH'):



          SELECT parent.name
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'FLASH'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Finding all children of a given node (here 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'):



          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent,
          nested_category AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - 1) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'
          GROUP BY node.name
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.name = sub_tree.name
          GROUP BY node.name
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          After renaming to your folders table



          • TABLE nested_category -> TABLE folders

          • Column category_id -> Column id

          • Column name -> Column title

          The solution is:



          CREATE TABLE folders (
          id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          title VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );

          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(1, 'root', 1, 10);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(2, 'one', 2, 9);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(3, 'target', 3, 8);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(4, 'child one', 4, 5);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(5, 'child two', 6, 7);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(6, 'root 2', 11, 16);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(7, 'other child one', 12, 13);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(8, 'other child two', 14, 15);


          Path to the target:



          SELECT parent.title
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Target children:



          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent,
          folders AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - 1) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          GROUP BY node.title
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.title = sub_tree.title
          GROUP BY node.title
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          See sqlfiddle



          To get all the data in a single query, a union should do.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 1





            Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

            – Jiri Tousek
            Mar 27 at 15:10











          • @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:03







          • 1





            Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

            – emix
            Mar 28 at 21:42












          • Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 0:48











          • Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 22:00













          5












          5








          5







          In your table design, ID and PARENT_ID corresponds to the "Adjacency List Model" for storing a tree.



          There is another design, called the "Nested Set Model", which makes it easier to perform the operations you want here.



          See this excellent article from Mike Hillyer describing both:
          managing-hierarchical-data-in-mysql



          In summary:



          The tree is stored in a table like:



          CREATE TABLE nested_category (
          category_id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );


          Finding the path from the root to a given node (here, 'FLASH'):



          SELECT parent.name
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'FLASH'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Finding all children of a given node (here 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'):



          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent,
          nested_category AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - 1) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'
          GROUP BY node.name
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.name = sub_tree.name
          GROUP BY node.name
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          After renaming to your folders table



          • TABLE nested_category -> TABLE folders

          • Column category_id -> Column id

          • Column name -> Column title

          The solution is:



          CREATE TABLE folders (
          id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          title VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );

          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(1, 'root', 1, 10);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(2, 'one', 2, 9);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(3, 'target', 3, 8);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(4, 'child one', 4, 5);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(5, 'child two', 6, 7);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(6, 'root 2', 11, 16);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(7, 'other child one', 12, 13);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(8, 'other child two', 14, 15);


          Path to the target:



          SELECT parent.title
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Target children:



          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent,
          folders AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - 1) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          GROUP BY node.title
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.title = sub_tree.title
          GROUP BY node.title
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          See sqlfiddle



          To get all the data in a single query, a union should do.






          share|improve this answer















          In your table design, ID and PARENT_ID corresponds to the "Adjacency List Model" for storing a tree.



          There is another design, called the "Nested Set Model", which makes it easier to perform the operations you want here.



          See this excellent article from Mike Hillyer describing both:
          managing-hierarchical-data-in-mysql



          In summary:



          The tree is stored in a table like:



          CREATE TABLE nested_category (
          category_id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          name VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );


          Finding the path from the root to a given node (here, 'FLASH'):



          SELECT parent.name
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'FLASH'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Finding all children of a given node (here 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'):



          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent,
          nested_category AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.name, (COUNT(parent.name) - 1) AS depth
          FROM nested_category AS node,
          nested_category AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.name = 'PORTABLE ELECTRONICS'
          GROUP BY node.name
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.name = sub_tree.name
          GROUP BY node.name
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          After renaming to your folders table



          • TABLE nested_category -> TABLE folders

          • Column category_id -> Column id

          • Column name -> Column title

          The solution is:



          CREATE TABLE folders (
          id INT AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
          title VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL,
          lft INT NOT NULL,
          rgt INT NOT NULL
          );

          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(1, 'root', 1, 10);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(2, 'one', 2, 9);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(3, 'target', 3, 8);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(4, 'child one', 4, 5);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(5, 'child two', 6, 7);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(6, 'root 2', 11, 16);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(7, 'other child one', 12, 13);
          INSERT INTO folders(id, title, lft, rgt) values(8, 'other child two', 14, 15);


          Path to the target:



          SELECT parent.title
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          ORDER BY parent.lft;


          Target children:



          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - (sub_tree.depth + 1)) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent,
          folders AS sub_parent,
          (
          SELECT node.title, (COUNT(parent.title) - 1) AS depth
          FROM folders AS node,
          folders AS parent
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.title = 'target'
          GROUP BY node.title
          ORDER BY node.lft
          )AS sub_tree
          WHERE node.lft BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
          AND node.lft BETWEEN sub_parent.lft AND sub_parent.rgt
          AND sub_parent.title = sub_tree.title
          GROUP BY node.title
          HAVING depth <= 1
          ORDER BY node.lft;


          See sqlfiddle



          To get all the data in a single query, a union should do.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday









          GMB

          20.8k51028




          20.8k51028










          answered Mar 26 at 0:58









          Marc AlffMarc Alff

          6,3602250




          6,3602250







          • 1





            Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

            – Jiri Tousek
            Mar 27 at 15:10











          • @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:03







          • 1





            Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

            – emix
            Mar 28 at 21:42












          • Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 0:48











          • Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 22:00












          • 1





            Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

            – Jiri Tousek
            Mar 27 at 15:10











          • @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:03







          • 1





            Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

            – emix
            Mar 28 at 21:42












          • Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 0:48











          • Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 22:00







          1




          1





          Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

          – Jiri Tousek
          Mar 27 at 15:10





          Note that under this model, adding a new item will cost o(n) (i.e. it might necessitate update of all rows in the table).

          – Jiri Tousek
          Mar 27 at 15:10













          @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

          – Marc Alff
          Mar 28 at 16:03






          @JiriTousek Correct, there are pros and cons to this model.

          – Marc Alff
          Mar 28 at 16:03





          1




          1





          Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

          – emix
          Mar 28 at 21:42






          Nested set model rocks. I suspect this is some kind of an e-commerce. 99,99999% queries are going to be READS anyway, and selecting entire trees it blazing fast. It's really worth it.

          – emix
          Mar 28 at 21:42














          Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 0:48





          Selecting "parents" is also O(n).

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 0:48













          Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

          – surpavan
          Mar 30 at 22:00





          Best architecture is easy to solve many problems. Nice one to learn the design. best when least writes are there.

          – surpavan
          Mar 30 at 22:00











          2














          I've solved this in the past with a second table, which contains the transitive closure of all paths through the tree.



          mysql> CREATE TABLE folders_closure (
          ancestor INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          descendant INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          PRIMARY KEY (ancestor, descendant),
          depth INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL
          );


          Load this table with tuples of all ancestor-descendant pairs, including the ones where a node in the tree references itself (path of length 0).



          mysql> INSERT INTO folders_closure VALUES
          (1,1,0), (2,2,0), (3,3,0), (4,4,0), (5,5,0), (6,6,0),
          (1,2,1), (2,3,1), (3,4,1), (3,5,1), (1,4,2), (1,5,2),
          (6,7,1), (6,8,1);


          Now you can query the tree below a given node by querying all the paths that start at the top node, and join that path's descendant to your folders table.



          mysql> SELECT d.id, d.title, cl.depth FROM folders_closure cl
          JOIN folders d ON d.id=cl.descendant WHERE cl.ancestor=1;
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | id | title | depth |
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | 1 | root | 0 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 4 | child one | 2 |
          | 5 | child two | 2 |
          +----+-----------+-------+


          I see many people recommend the Nested Sets solution which was introduced in 1992, and became popular after Joe Celko included it in his book SQL for Smarties in 1995. But I don't like the Nested Sets technique, because the numbers aren't actually references to the primary keys of the nodes in your tree, and it requires renumbering many rows when you add or delete a node.



          I wrote about the closure table method in What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree? and some of my other answers with the hierarchical-data tag.



          I did a presentation about it: Models for Hierarchical Data.



          I also covered this in a chapter of my book SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.






          share|improve this answer

























          • How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:01






          • 1





            In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:17











          • I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:26











          • @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 29 at 22:17











          • Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 29 at 22:45















          2














          I've solved this in the past with a second table, which contains the transitive closure of all paths through the tree.



          mysql> CREATE TABLE folders_closure (
          ancestor INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          descendant INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          PRIMARY KEY (ancestor, descendant),
          depth INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL
          );


          Load this table with tuples of all ancestor-descendant pairs, including the ones where a node in the tree references itself (path of length 0).



          mysql> INSERT INTO folders_closure VALUES
          (1,1,0), (2,2,0), (3,3,0), (4,4,0), (5,5,0), (6,6,0),
          (1,2,1), (2,3,1), (3,4,1), (3,5,1), (1,4,2), (1,5,2),
          (6,7,1), (6,8,1);


          Now you can query the tree below a given node by querying all the paths that start at the top node, and join that path's descendant to your folders table.



          mysql> SELECT d.id, d.title, cl.depth FROM folders_closure cl
          JOIN folders d ON d.id=cl.descendant WHERE cl.ancestor=1;
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | id | title | depth |
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | 1 | root | 0 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 4 | child one | 2 |
          | 5 | child two | 2 |
          +----+-----------+-------+


          I see many people recommend the Nested Sets solution which was introduced in 1992, and became popular after Joe Celko included it in his book SQL for Smarties in 1995. But I don't like the Nested Sets technique, because the numbers aren't actually references to the primary keys of the nodes in your tree, and it requires renumbering many rows when you add or delete a node.



          I wrote about the closure table method in What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree? and some of my other answers with the hierarchical-data tag.



          I did a presentation about it: Models for Hierarchical Data.



          I also covered this in a chapter of my book SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.






          share|improve this answer

























          • How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:01






          • 1





            In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:17











          • I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:26











          • @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 29 at 22:17











          • Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 29 at 22:45













          2












          2








          2







          I've solved this in the past with a second table, which contains the transitive closure of all paths through the tree.



          mysql> CREATE TABLE folders_closure (
          ancestor INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          descendant INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          PRIMARY KEY (ancestor, descendant),
          depth INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL
          );


          Load this table with tuples of all ancestor-descendant pairs, including the ones where a node in the tree references itself (path of length 0).



          mysql> INSERT INTO folders_closure VALUES
          (1,1,0), (2,2,0), (3,3,0), (4,4,0), (5,5,0), (6,6,0),
          (1,2,1), (2,3,1), (3,4,1), (3,5,1), (1,4,2), (1,5,2),
          (6,7,1), (6,8,1);


          Now you can query the tree below a given node by querying all the paths that start at the top node, and join that path's descendant to your folders table.



          mysql> SELECT d.id, d.title, cl.depth FROM folders_closure cl
          JOIN folders d ON d.id=cl.descendant WHERE cl.ancestor=1;
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | id | title | depth |
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | 1 | root | 0 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 4 | child one | 2 |
          | 5 | child two | 2 |
          +----+-----------+-------+


          I see many people recommend the Nested Sets solution which was introduced in 1992, and became popular after Joe Celko included it in his book SQL for Smarties in 1995. But I don't like the Nested Sets technique, because the numbers aren't actually references to the primary keys of the nodes in your tree, and it requires renumbering many rows when you add or delete a node.



          I wrote about the closure table method in What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree? and some of my other answers with the hierarchical-data tag.



          I did a presentation about it: Models for Hierarchical Data.



          I also covered this in a chapter of my book SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.






          share|improve this answer















          I've solved this in the past with a second table, which contains the transitive closure of all paths through the tree.



          mysql> CREATE TABLE folders_closure (
          ancestor INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          descendant INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
          PRIMARY KEY (ancestor, descendant),
          depth INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL
          );


          Load this table with tuples of all ancestor-descendant pairs, including the ones where a node in the tree references itself (path of length 0).



          mysql> INSERT INTO folders_closure VALUES
          (1,1,0), (2,2,0), (3,3,0), (4,4,0), (5,5,0), (6,6,0),
          (1,2,1), (2,3,1), (3,4,1), (3,5,1), (1,4,2), (1,5,2),
          (6,7,1), (6,8,1);


          Now you can query the tree below a given node by querying all the paths that start at the top node, and join that path's descendant to your folders table.



          mysql> SELECT d.id, d.title, cl.depth FROM folders_closure cl
          JOIN folders d ON d.id=cl.descendant WHERE cl.ancestor=1;
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | id | title | depth |
          +----+-----------+-------+
          | 1 | root | 0 |
          | 2 | one | 1 |
          | 4 | child one | 2 |
          | 5 | child two | 2 |
          +----+-----------+-------+


          I see many people recommend the Nested Sets solution which was introduced in 1992, and became popular after Joe Celko included it in his book SQL for Smarties in 1995. But I don't like the Nested Sets technique, because the numbers aren't actually references to the primary keys of the nodes in your tree, and it requires renumbering many rows when you add or delete a node.



          I wrote about the closure table method in What is the most efficient/elegant way to parse a flat table into a tree? and some of my other answers with the hierarchical-data tag.



          I did a presentation about it: Models for Hierarchical Data.



          I also covered this in a chapter of my book SQL Antipatterns: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Database Programming.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Mar 28 at 14:25

























          answered Mar 28 at 14:16









          Bill KarwinBill Karwin

          384k64520678




          384k64520678












          • How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:01






          • 1





            In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:17











          • I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:26











          • @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 29 at 22:17











          • Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 29 at 22:45

















          • How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

            – Marc Alff
            Mar 28 at 16:01






          • 1





            In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:17











          • I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 28 at 16:26











          • @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 29 at 22:17











          • Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

            – Bill Karwin
            Mar 29 at 22:45
















          How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

          – Marc Alff
          Mar 28 at 16:01





          How does the size of the closure table grow, when the number of nodes in the tree (N) grows ?

          – Marc Alff
          Mar 28 at 16:01




          1




          1





          In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 28 at 16:17





          In theory, O(n^2 / 2) but in practice it's usually less than that.

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 28 at 16:17













          I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 28 at 16:26





          I tested with a tree of 518,000 nodes, and if I recall it created fewer than 5 million rows in the closure table.

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 28 at 16:26













          @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 29 at 22:17





          @MarcAlff N²/2 is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number is N * average_depth. For a balanced binary tree it is N * log2(N), which is something like 20M rows for 1M nodes. But most trees are not binary. For example: The average nesting depth in frequently used tree-style forum will almost stop growing at some point, and you will end up with something like 5x to 10x rows per post. So 5M rows for 500K rows is a realistic number.

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 29 at 22:17













          Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 29 at 22:45





          Yes, my test data was the taxonomy of all plants, animals, and fungi from itis.gov.

          – Bill Karwin
          Mar 29 at 22:45











          2














          If it's guaranteed that child nodes always have a higher id than it's parent, then you could use user variables.



          Get descendants:



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(parent_id, @l)
          order by id


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          ---|-----------|-----------|------
          4 | child one | 3 | 3,4
          5 | child two | 3 | 3,4,5


          Get ancestors (including itself):



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, parent_id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(id, @l)
          order by id desc


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          3 | target | 2 | 3,2
          2 | one | 1 | 3,2,1
          1 | root | null | 3,2,1


          Demo



          Note that this technique relies on undocumented evaluation order, and will not be possible in future versions.



          Also it is not very performant, since both queries need a full table scan, but might be fine for smaller tables. However - for small tables I would just fetch the full table and solve the task with a recursive function in application code.



          For bigger tables I would consider a more complex solution like the following stored procedure:



          create procedure get_related_nodes(in in_id int)
          begin
          set @list = in_id;
          set @parents = @list;

          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select group_concat(id) into @children
          from folders
          where parent_id in (parents)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'parents', @parents);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @list, @children);
          set @parents = @children;
          until (@children is null) end repeat;

          set @child = in_id;
          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select parent_id into @parent
          from folders
          where id = (child)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'child', @child);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @parent, @list);
          set @child = @parent;
          until (@parent is null) end repeat;

          set @sql = '
          select *
          from folders
          where id in (list)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'list', @list);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          end


          Use it with



          call get_related_nodes(3)


          This will return



          id | title | parent_id
          ---|-----------|----------
          1 | root |
          2 | one | 1
          3 | target | 2
          4 | child one | 3
          5 | child two | 3


          Demo



          I expect this procedure to perform as good as a recursive CTE query. In any case you should have an index on parent_id.






          share|improve this answer























          • Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 20:52






          • 1





            @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 20:59







          • 1





            @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:05






          • 1





            Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:09






          • 2





            Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:35















          2














          If it's guaranteed that child nodes always have a higher id than it's parent, then you could use user variables.



          Get descendants:



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(parent_id, @l)
          order by id


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          ---|-----------|-----------|------
          4 | child one | 3 | 3,4
          5 | child two | 3 | 3,4,5


          Get ancestors (including itself):



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, parent_id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(id, @l)
          order by id desc


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          3 | target | 2 | 3,2
          2 | one | 1 | 3,2,1
          1 | root | null | 3,2,1


          Demo



          Note that this technique relies on undocumented evaluation order, and will not be possible in future versions.



          Also it is not very performant, since both queries need a full table scan, but might be fine for smaller tables. However - for small tables I would just fetch the full table and solve the task with a recursive function in application code.



          For bigger tables I would consider a more complex solution like the following stored procedure:



          create procedure get_related_nodes(in in_id int)
          begin
          set @list = in_id;
          set @parents = @list;

          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select group_concat(id) into @children
          from folders
          where parent_id in (parents)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'parents', @parents);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @list, @children);
          set @parents = @children;
          until (@children is null) end repeat;

          set @child = in_id;
          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select parent_id into @parent
          from folders
          where id = (child)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'child', @child);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @parent, @list);
          set @child = @parent;
          until (@parent is null) end repeat;

          set @sql = '
          select *
          from folders
          where id in (list)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'list', @list);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          end


          Use it with



          call get_related_nodes(3)


          This will return



          id | title | parent_id
          ---|-----------|----------
          1 | root |
          2 | one | 1
          3 | target | 2
          4 | child one | 3
          5 | child two | 3


          Demo



          I expect this procedure to perform as good as a recursive CTE query. In any case you should have an index on parent_id.






          share|improve this answer























          • Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 20:52






          • 1





            @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 20:59







          • 1





            @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:05






          • 1





            Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:09






          • 2





            Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:35













          2












          2








          2







          If it's guaranteed that child nodes always have a higher id than it's parent, then you could use user variables.



          Get descendants:



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(parent_id, @l)
          order by id


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          ---|-----------|-----------|------
          4 | child one | 3 | 3,4
          5 | child two | 3 | 3,4,5


          Get ancestors (including itself):



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, parent_id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(id, @l)
          order by id desc


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          3 | target | 2 | 3,2
          2 | one | 1 | 3,2,1
          1 | root | null | 3,2,1


          Demo



          Note that this technique relies on undocumented evaluation order, and will not be possible in future versions.



          Also it is not very performant, since both queries need a full table scan, but might be fine for smaller tables. However - for small tables I would just fetch the full table and solve the task with a recursive function in application code.



          For bigger tables I would consider a more complex solution like the following stored procedure:



          create procedure get_related_nodes(in in_id int)
          begin
          set @list = in_id;
          set @parents = @list;

          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select group_concat(id) into @children
          from folders
          where parent_id in (parents)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'parents', @parents);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @list, @children);
          set @parents = @children;
          until (@children is null) end repeat;

          set @child = in_id;
          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select parent_id into @parent
          from folders
          where id = (child)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'child', @child);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @parent, @list);
          set @child = @parent;
          until (@parent is null) end repeat;

          set @sql = '
          select *
          from folders
          where id in (list)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'list', @list);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          end


          Use it with



          call get_related_nodes(3)


          This will return



          id | title | parent_id
          ---|-----------|----------
          1 | root |
          2 | one | 1
          3 | target | 2
          4 | child one | 3
          5 | child two | 3


          Demo



          I expect this procedure to perform as good as a recursive CTE query. In any case you should have an index on parent_id.






          share|improve this answer













          If it's guaranteed that child nodes always have a higher id than it's parent, then you could use user variables.



          Get descendants:



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(parent_id, @l)
          order by id


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          ---|-----------|-----------|------
          4 | child one | 3 | 3,4
          5 | child two | 3 | 3,4,5


          Get ancestors (including itself):



          select f.*, @l := concat_ws(',', @l, parent_id) as dummy
          from folders f
          cross join (select @l := 3) init_list
          where find_in_set(id, @l)
          order by id desc


          Result:



          id | title | parent_id | dummy
          3 | target | 2 | 3,2
          2 | one | 1 | 3,2,1
          1 | root | null | 3,2,1


          Demo



          Note that this technique relies on undocumented evaluation order, and will not be possible in future versions.



          Also it is not very performant, since both queries need a full table scan, but might be fine for smaller tables. However - for small tables I would just fetch the full table and solve the task with a recursive function in application code.



          For bigger tables I would consider a more complex solution like the following stored procedure:



          create procedure get_related_nodes(in in_id int)
          begin
          set @list = in_id;
          set @parents = @list;

          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select group_concat(id) into @children
          from folders
          where parent_id in (parents)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'parents', @parents);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @list, @children);
          set @parents = @children;
          until (@children is null) end repeat;

          set @child = in_id;
          repeat
          set @sql = '
          select parent_id into @parent
          from folders
          where id = (child)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'child', @child);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          set @list = concat_ws(',', @parent, @list);
          set @child = @parent;
          until (@parent is null) end repeat;

          set @sql = '
          select *
          from folders
          where id in (list)
          ';
          set @sql = replace(@sql, 'list', @list);
          prepare stmt from @sql;
          execute stmt;
          end


          Use it with



          call get_related_nodes(3)


          This will return



          id | title | parent_id
          ---|-----------|----------
          1 | root |
          2 | one | 1
          3 | target | 2
          4 | child one | 3
          5 | child two | 3


          Demo



          I expect this procedure to perform as good as a recursive CTE query. In any case you should have an index on parent_id.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 30 at 0:34









          Paul SpiegelPaul Spiegel

          17.6k32435




          17.6k32435












          • Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 20:52






          • 1





            @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 20:59







          • 1





            @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:05






          • 1





            Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:09






          • 2





            Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:35

















          • Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

            – surpavan
            Mar 30 at 20:52






          • 1





            @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 20:59







          • 1





            @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:05






          • 1





            Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:09






          • 2





            Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

            – Paul Spiegel
            Mar 30 at 22:35
















          Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

          – surpavan
          Mar 30 at 20:52





          Could you please explain or direct me to a good resource regarding the working style of "cross join (select @l := 3) init_list"? That is a really short code and would like to learn more on it.

          – surpavan
          Mar 30 at 20:52




          1




          1





          @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 20:59






          @surpavan cross join (select @l := 3) init_list is a "trick" to avoid an extra query set @l = 3;. MySQL will execute/evaluate a "constant" subquery like this as the first step (you can see that when you use EXPLAIN). So this line is just initializing the @l variable. You will find this "trick" in many other similar answers.

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 20:59





          1




          1





          @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 22:05





          @surpavan @l := concat_ws(',', @l, id) in the SELECT clause will append the id to @l, but only if the WHERE condition is TRUE for that row. IF you remove the WHERE clause, all ids will be appended. If you want to "play around" - try this: db-fiddle.com/f/vEVeEbLyKuBqCkLfuCz6M4/0

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 22:05




          1




          1





          Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 22:09





          Actually for "parents" you don't need a list, and can use this: db-fiddle.com/f/8w1Jrfw4gXZzckudHjKzUz/0

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 22:09




          2




          2





          Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 22:35





          Be careful though and read my note in the answer. There is no such thing as "execution flow" or "execution order" in SQL, because SQL is not a procedural language. This only works due to MySQL's internal implementation. They don't want to "break" existing code, which relies on this implementation. But at the same time they need the "freedom" to change things. That's why this technique is deprecated and something like @l := id will not work in future versions (maybe already in 8.1). But from 8.0 on you better use a recursive CTE as suggested by GMB.

          – Paul Spiegel
          Mar 30 at 22:35











          2














          if your parent_id comes always in ascending order then below query is the great solution.



          if you get the result your id to null parent value then Please follow the link
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/258 (When passing id = 6)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/259 (When passing id = 3)



          SELECT * FROM folders f
          WHERE id = 3
          OR
          (Parent_id <=3 AND Parent_id >=
          (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1)) OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0)
          AND id >= (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1);


          OR



          You won't get your passing id to top at parent then please follow the link as below.
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/194 (When passing id =3)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/208 (When passing id =6)



          SELECT 
          *
          FROM
          folders f
          WHERE
          id = 3 OR Parent_id <=3
          OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0);





          share|improve this answer

























          • please add a comment if downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

            – Ajan Balakumaran
            yesterday











          • @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

            – Hadi
            yesterday















          2














          if your parent_id comes always in ascending order then below query is the great solution.



          if you get the result your id to null parent value then Please follow the link
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/258 (When passing id = 6)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/259 (When passing id = 3)



          SELECT * FROM folders f
          WHERE id = 3
          OR
          (Parent_id <=3 AND Parent_id >=
          (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1)) OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0)
          AND id >= (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1);


          OR



          You won't get your passing id to top at parent then please follow the link as below.
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/194 (When passing id =3)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/208 (When passing id =6)



          SELECT 
          *
          FROM
          folders f
          WHERE
          id = 3 OR Parent_id <=3
          OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0);





          share|improve this answer

























          • please add a comment if downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

            – Ajan Balakumaran
            yesterday











          • @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

            – Hadi
            yesterday













          2












          2








          2







          if your parent_id comes always in ascending order then below query is the great solution.



          if you get the result your id to null parent value then Please follow the link
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/258 (When passing id = 6)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/259 (When passing id = 3)



          SELECT * FROM folders f
          WHERE id = 3
          OR
          (Parent_id <=3 AND Parent_id >=
          (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1)) OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0)
          AND id >= (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1);


          OR



          You won't get your passing id to top at parent then please follow the link as below.
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/194 (When passing id =3)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/208 (When passing id =6)



          SELECT 
          *
          FROM
          folders f
          WHERE
          id = 3 OR Parent_id <=3
          OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0);





          share|improve this answer















          if your parent_id comes always in ascending order then below query is the great solution.



          if you get the result your id to null parent value then Please follow the link
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/258 (When passing id = 6)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/259 (When passing id = 3)



          SELECT * FROM folders f
          WHERE id = 3
          OR
          (Parent_id <=3 AND Parent_id >=
          (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1)) OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0)
          AND id >= (SELECT id FROM folders Where id <= 3 AND parent_id IS NULL Order by ID desc LIMIT 1);


          OR



          You won't get your passing id to top at parent then please follow the link as below.
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/194 (When passing id =3)
          http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!9/b40b8/208 (When passing id =6)



          SELECT 
          *
          FROM
          folders f
          WHERE
          id = 3 OR Parent_id <=3
          OR (id <= 3 AND IFNULL(Parent_id,0) = 0);






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered yesterday









          Hemang AgheraHemang Aghera

          798111




          798111












          • please add a comment if downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

            – Ajan Balakumaran
            yesterday











          • @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

            – Hadi
            yesterday

















          • please add a comment if downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

            – Ajan Balakumaran
            yesterday











          • @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

            – Hemang Aghera
            yesterday











          • @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

            – Hadi
            yesterday
















          please add a comment if downvote

          – Hemang Aghera
          yesterday





          please add a comment if downvote

          – Hemang Aghera
          yesterday













          First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

          – Hemang Aghera
          yesterday





          First, read the answer after check results and if not works then downvote

          – Hemang Aghera
          yesterday













          I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

          – Ajan Balakumaran
          yesterday





          I didn't downvote but I know the reason, for 6 you should get 6,7 and 8. but this logic will get everything below a given id and that is wrong.

          – Ajan Balakumaran
          yesterday













          @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

          – Hemang Aghera
          yesterday





          @AjanBalakumaran Please check the latest result and if any doubts then tell me.

          – Hemang Aghera
          yesterday













          @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

          – Hadi
          yesterday





          @HemangAghera i don't see that this answer deserve downvoting. +1

          – Hadi
          yesterday











          0














          You can perform an union between parent rows and child rows like this :



          select title, id, @parent:=parent_id as parent from
          (select @parent:=3 ) a join (select * from folders order by id desc) b where @parent=id
          union select title, id, parent_id as parent from folders where parent_id=3 ORDER BY id


          here a sample dbfiddle






          share|improve this answer



























            0














            You can perform an union between parent rows and child rows like this :



            select title, id, @parent:=parent_id as parent from
            (select @parent:=3 ) a join (select * from folders order by id desc) b where @parent=id
            union select title, id, parent_id as parent from folders where parent_id=3 ORDER BY id


            here a sample dbfiddle






            share|improve this answer

























              0












              0








              0







              You can perform an union between parent rows and child rows like this :



              select title, id, @parent:=parent_id as parent from
              (select @parent:=3 ) a join (select * from folders order by id desc) b where @parent=id
              union select title, id, parent_id as parent from folders where parent_id=3 ORDER BY id


              here a sample dbfiddle






              share|improve this answer













              You can perform an union between parent rows and child rows like this :



              select title, id, @parent:=parent_id as parent from
              (select @parent:=3 ) a join (select * from folders order by id desc) b where @parent=id
              union select title, id, parent_id as parent from folders where parent_id=3 ORDER BY id


              here a sample dbfiddle







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Mar 28 at 21:38









              Abdelkarim EL AMELAbdelkarim EL AMEL

              44835




              44835





















                  0














                  Note My solution is more or less same as @Marc Alff. Didn't realise it was already there before typing / preparing response in an editor.



                  It is very difficult to get a query to achieve your objective (or other typical requirements of hierarchical dataset) without use of CTEs or other hierarchical query supports (e.g. prior, connect by in Oracle). This was the main driver for databases to come up with CTEs etc.



                  Many many years ago when such support for modelling hierarchical entities weren't available in databases, requirements outlined by you and many other related were solved by modelling such entities slightly differently.



                  The concept is simple. In essence, two more attributes are introduced in the hierarchical table (or a separate table foreign keyed into hierarchical table) called left_boundary and right_boundary (call whatever you wish after all what’s in the name). For each row the values (numbers) for these attributes are so chosen that they cover the values of these attributes for all their children. In other words, a child’s left and right boundaries will be between left and right boundaries of its parents.



                  By the way of example



                  enter image description here



                  Creating this hierarchy used to be part of an early morning batch job or the boundaries were chosen so wide apart during design time that they were easily covering all depths of tree.



                  I am going to use this solution to achieve your objective.
                  Firstly I will introduce a second table (could have introduced the attributes in the same table, decided not to disturb your data model)



                  CREATE TABLE folder_boundaries (
                  id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                  folder_id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
                  left_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                  right_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                  PRIMARY KEY (id),
                  FOREIGN KEY (folder_id) REFERENCES folders(id)
                  );


                  The data for this table based on your dataset



                  NSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(1, 1, 10);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(2, 2, 9);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(3, 3, 8);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(4, 4, 4);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(5, 4, 4);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(6, 21, 25);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);
                  INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);


                  Here is the query to achieve what you are after



                  select f.id, f.title
                  from folders f
                  join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                  where fb.left_boundary < (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                  and fb.right_boundary > (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                  union all
                  select f.id, f.title
                  from folders f
                  join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                  where fb.left_boundary >= (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                  and fb.right_boundary <= (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)


                  Result



                  enter image description here






                  share|improve this answer



























                    0














                    Note My solution is more or less same as @Marc Alff. Didn't realise it was already there before typing / preparing response in an editor.



                    It is very difficult to get a query to achieve your objective (or other typical requirements of hierarchical dataset) without use of CTEs or other hierarchical query supports (e.g. prior, connect by in Oracle). This was the main driver for databases to come up with CTEs etc.



                    Many many years ago when such support for modelling hierarchical entities weren't available in databases, requirements outlined by you and many other related were solved by modelling such entities slightly differently.



                    The concept is simple. In essence, two more attributes are introduced in the hierarchical table (or a separate table foreign keyed into hierarchical table) called left_boundary and right_boundary (call whatever you wish after all what’s in the name). For each row the values (numbers) for these attributes are so chosen that they cover the values of these attributes for all their children. In other words, a child’s left and right boundaries will be between left and right boundaries of its parents.



                    By the way of example



                    enter image description here



                    Creating this hierarchy used to be part of an early morning batch job or the boundaries were chosen so wide apart during design time that they were easily covering all depths of tree.



                    I am going to use this solution to achieve your objective.
                    Firstly I will introduce a second table (could have introduced the attributes in the same table, decided not to disturb your data model)



                    CREATE TABLE folder_boundaries (
                    id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                    folder_id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
                    left_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                    right_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                    PRIMARY KEY (id),
                    FOREIGN KEY (folder_id) REFERENCES folders(id)
                    );


                    The data for this table based on your dataset



                    NSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(1, 1, 10);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(2, 2, 9);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(3, 3, 8);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(4, 4, 4);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(5, 4, 4);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(6, 21, 25);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);
                    INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);


                    Here is the query to achieve what you are after



                    select f.id, f.title
                    from folders f
                    join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                    where fb.left_boundary < (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                    and fb.right_boundary > (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                    union all
                    select f.id, f.title
                    from folders f
                    join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                    where fb.left_boundary >= (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                    and fb.right_boundary <= (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)


                    Result



                    enter image description here






                    share|improve this answer

























                      0












                      0








                      0







                      Note My solution is more or less same as @Marc Alff. Didn't realise it was already there before typing / preparing response in an editor.



                      It is very difficult to get a query to achieve your objective (or other typical requirements of hierarchical dataset) without use of CTEs or other hierarchical query supports (e.g. prior, connect by in Oracle). This was the main driver for databases to come up with CTEs etc.



                      Many many years ago when such support for modelling hierarchical entities weren't available in databases, requirements outlined by you and many other related were solved by modelling such entities slightly differently.



                      The concept is simple. In essence, two more attributes are introduced in the hierarchical table (or a separate table foreign keyed into hierarchical table) called left_boundary and right_boundary (call whatever you wish after all what’s in the name). For each row the values (numbers) for these attributes are so chosen that they cover the values of these attributes for all their children. In other words, a child’s left and right boundaries will be between left and right boundaries of its parents.



                      By the way of example



                      enter image description here



                      Creating this hierarchy used to be part of an early morning batch job or the boundaries were chosen so wide apart during design time that they were easily covering all depths of tree.



                      I am going to use this solution to achieve your objective.
                      Firstly I will introduce a second table (could have introduced the attributes in the same table, decided not to disturb your data model)



                      CREATE TABLE folder_boundaries (
                      id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                      folder_id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
                      left_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                      right_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                      PRIMARY KEY (id),
                      FOREIGN KEY (folder_id) REFERENCES folders(id)
                      );


                      The data for this table based on your dataset



                      NSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(1, 1, 10);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(2, 2, 9);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(3, 3, 8);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(4, 4, 4);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(5, 4, 4);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(6, 21, 25);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);


                      Here is the query to achieve what you are after



                      select f.id, f.title
                      from folders f
                      join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                      where fb.left_boundary < (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                      and fb.right_boundary > (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                      union all
                      select f.id, f.title
                      from folders f
                      join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                      where fb.left_boundary >= (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                      and fb.right_boundary <= (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)


                      Result



                      enter image description here






                      share|improve this answer













                      Note My solution is more or less same as @Marc Alff. Didn't realise it was already there before typing / preparing response in an editor.



                      It is very difficult to get a query to achieve your objective (or other typical requirements of hierarchical dataset) without use of CTEs or other hierarchical query supports (e.g. prior, connect by in Oracle). This was the main driver for databases to come up with CTEs etc.



                      Many many years ago when such support for modelling hierarchical entities weren't available in databases, requirements outlined by you and many other related were solved by modelling such entities slightly differently.



                      The concept is simple. In essence, two more attributes are introduced in the hierarchical table (or a separate table foreign keyed into hierarchical table) called left_boundary and right_boundary (call whatever you wish after all what’s in the name). For each row the values (numbers) for these attributes are so chosen that they cover the values of these attributes for all their children. In other words, a child’s left and right boundaries will be between left and right boundaries of its parents.



                      By the way of example



                      enter image description here



                      Creating this hierarchy used to be part of an early morning batch job or the boundaries were chosen so wide apart during design time that they were easily covering all depths of tree.



                      I am going to use this solution to achieve your objective.
                      Firstly I will introduce a second table (could have introduced the attributes in the same table, decided not to disturb your data model)



                      CREATE TABLE folder_boundaries (
                      id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                      folder_id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
                      left_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                      right_boundary int(10) unsigned,
                      PRIMARY KEY (id),
                      FOREIGN KEY (folder_id) REFERENCES folders(id)
                      );


                      The data for this table based on your dataset



                      NSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(1, 1, 10);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(2, 2, 9);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(3, 3, 8);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(4, 4, 4);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(5, 4, 4);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(6, 21, 25);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);
                      INSERT INTO folder_boundaries(folder_id, left_boundary, right_boundary) VALUES(7, 22, 22);


                      Here is the query to achieve what you are after



                      select f.id, f.title
                      from folders f
                      join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                      where fb.left_boundary < (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                      and fb.right_boundary > (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                      union all
                      select f.id, f.title
                      from folders f
                      join folder_boundaries fb on f.id = fb.folder_id
                      where fb.left_boundary >= (select left_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)
                      and fb.right_boundary <= (select right_boundary from folder_boundaries where folder_id = 3)


                      Result



                      enter image description here







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Mar 29 at 13:23









                      GroGro

                      43827




                      43827





















                          0














                          Small code using stored procedures, tested on 5.6:



                          drop procedure if exists test;
                          DELIMITER //
                          create procedure test(in testid int)
                          begin
                          DECLARE parent int;
                          set parent = testid;

                          drop temporary table if exists pars;
                          CREATE temporary TABLE pars (
                          id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                          title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
                          parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
                          PRIMARY KEY (id)
                          );

                          #For getting heirarchy
                          while parent is not null do
                          insert into pars
                          select * from folders where id = parent;
                          set parent = (select parent_id from folders where id = parent);
                          end while;

                          #For getting child
                          insert into pars
                          select * from folders where parent_id = testid;

                          select * from pars;
                          end //
                          DELIMITER ;


                          below is the call to the code:



                          call test(3);


                          And the output is:



                          enter image description here



                          The end result can be formatted with string combined as required, once we get the table, rest should be easy I guess. Also, if id can be sorted it would be great for formatting.



                          Not to mention both the fields id and parent_id should be index for this to work efficiently.






                          share|improve this answer



























                            0














                            Small code using stored procedures, tested on 5.6:



                            drop procedure if exists test;
                            DELIMITER //
                            create procedure test(in testid int)
                            begin
                            DECLARE parent int;
                            set parent = testid;

                            drop temporary table if exists pars;
                            CREATE temporary TABLE pars (
                            id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                            title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
                            parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
                            PRIMARY KEY (id)
                            );

                            #For getting heirarchy
                            while parent is not null do
                            insert into pars
                            select * from folders where id = parent;
                            set parent = (select parent_id from folders where id = parent);
                            end while;

                            #For getting child
                            insert into pars
                            select * from folders where parent_id = testid;

                            select * from pars;
                            end //
                            DELIMITER ;


                            below is the call to the code:



                            call test(3);


                            And the output is:



                            enter image description here



                            The end result can be formatted with string combined as required, once we get the table, rest should be easy I guess. Also, if id can be sorted it would be great for formatting.



                            Not to mention both the fields id and parent_id should be index for this to work efficiently.






                            share|improve this answer

























                              0












                              0








                              0







                              Small code using stored procedures, tested on 5.6:



                              drop procedure if exists test;
                              DELIMITER //
                              create procedure test(in testid int)
                              begin
                              DECLARE parent int;
                              set parent = testid;

                              drop temporary table if exists pars;
                              CREATE temporary TABLE pars (
                              id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                              title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
                              parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
                              PRIMARY KEY (id)
                              );

                              #For getting heirarchy
                              while parent is not null do
                              insert into pars
                              select * from folders where id = parent;
                              set parent = (select parent_id from folders where id = parent);
                              end while;

                              #For getting child
                              insert into pars
                              select * from folders where parent_id = testid;

                              select * from pars;
                              end //
                              DELIMITER ;


                              below is the call to the code:



                              call test(3);


                              And the output is:



                              enter image description here



                              The end result can be formatted with string combined as required, once we get the table, rest should be easy I guess. Also, if id can be sorted it would be great for formatting.



                              Not to mention both the fields id and parent_id should be index for this to work efficiently.






                              share|improve this answer













                              Small code using stored procedures, tested on 5.6:



                              drop procedure if exists test;
                              DELIMITER //
                              create procedure test(in testid int)
                              begin
                              DECLARE parent int;
                              set parent = testid;

                              drop temporary table if exists pars;
                              CREATE temporary TABLE pars (
                              id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
                              title nvarchar(255) NOT NULL,
                              parent_id int(10) unsigned DEFAULT NULL,
                              PRIMARY KEY (id)
                              );

                              #For getting heirarchy
                              while parent is not null do
                              insert into pars
                              select * from folders where id = parent;
                              set parent = (select parent_id from folders where id = parent);
                              end while;

                              #For getting child
                              insert into pars
                              select * from folders where parent_id = testid;

                              select * from pars;
                              end //
                              DELIMITER ;


                              below is the call to the code:



                              call test(3);


                              And the output is:



                              enter image description here



                              The end result can be formatted with string combined as required, once we get the table, rest should be easy I guess. Also, if id can be sorted it would be great for formatting.



                              Not to mention both the fields id and parent_id should be index for this to work efficiently.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Mar 30 at 20:43









                              surpavansurpavan

                              66342455




                              66342455





















                                  0














                                  Suppose you know the maximum depth of the tree, you could "create" a loop to get what you want:



                                  Get parent nodes:



                                  SELECT @id :=
                                  (
                                  SELECT parent_id
                                  FROM folders
                                  WHERE id = @id
                                  ) AS folderId, vars.id
                                  FROM (
                                  SELECT @id := 7 AS id
                                  ) vars
                                  INNER JOIN (
                                  SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                  UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                  UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                  UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                  WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                  Get child nodes:



                                  SELECT @id :=
                                  (
                                  SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(id)
                                  FROM folders
                                  WHERE FIND_IN_SET(parent_id, @id)
                                  ) AS folderIds, vars.id
                                  FROM (
                                  SELECT @id := 1 AS id
                                  ) vars
                                  INNER JOIN (
                                  SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                  UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                  UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                  UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                  WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                  This works by



                                  • Creating a join between a static variable subquery (SELECT @id := 1 AS id) and a static set of 10 rows in this case(maximum depth)

                                  • using a subquery in the select to traverse the tree and find all the parents or child nodes

                                  The purpose of the join is to create a result set of 10 rows, so that the subquery in the select is executed 10 times.



                                  Alternatively, if you do not know the maximum depth, you could replace the joined subquery with



                                  INNER JOIN (
                                  SELECT 1 FROM folder) temp


                                  or in order to avoid all the union selects above, use with a limit:



                                  INNER JOIN (
                                  SELECT 1 FROM folder LIMIT 100) temp


                                  References:
                                  - Hierarchical queries in MySQL






                                  share|improve this answer





























                                    0














                                    Suppose you know the maximum depth of the tree, you could "create" a loop to get what you want:



                                    Get parent nodes:



                                    SELECT @id :=
                                    (
                                    SELECT parent_id
                                    FROM folders
                                    WHERE id = @id
                                    ) AS folderId, vars.id
                                    FROM (
                                    SELECT @id := 7 AS id
                                    ) vars
                                    INNER JOIN (
                                    SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                    UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                    UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                    UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                    WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                    Get child nodes:



                                    SELECT @id :=
                                    (
                                    SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(id)
                                    FROM folders
                                    WHERE FIND_IN_SET(parent_id, @id)
                                    ) AS folderIds, vars.id
                                    FROM (
                                    SELECT @id := 1 AS id
                                    ) vars
                                    INNER JOIN (
                                    SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                    UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                    UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                    UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                    WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                    This works by



                                    • Creating a join between a static variable subquery (SELECT @id := 1 AS id) and a static set of 10 rows in this case(maximum depth)

                                    • using a subquery in the select to traverse the tree and find all the parents or child nodes

                                    The purpose of the join is to create a result set of 10 rows, so that the subquery in the select is executed 10 times.



                                    Alternatively, if you do not know the maximum depth, you could replace the joined subquery with



                                    INNER JOIN (
                                    SELECT 1 FROM folder) temp


                                    or in order to avoid all the union selects above, use with a limit:



                                    INNER JOIN (
                                    SELECT 1 FROM folder LIMIT 100) temp


                                    References:
                                    - Hierarchical queries in MySQL






                                    share|improve this answer



























                                      0












                                      0








                                      0







                                      Suppose you know the maximum depth of the tree, you could "create" a loop to get what you want:



                                      Get parent nodes:



                                      SELECT @id :=
                                      (
                                      SELECT parent_id
                                      FROM folders
                                      WHERE id = @id
                                      ) AS folderId, vars.id
                                      FROM (
                                      SELECT @id := 7 AS id
                                      ) vars
                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                      WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                      Get child nodes:



                                      SELECT @id :=
                                      (
                                      SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(id)
                                      FROM folders
                                      WHERE FIND_IN_SET(parent_id, @id)
                                      ) AS folderIds, vars.id
                                      FROM (
                                      SELECT @id := 1 AS id
                                      ) vars
                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                      WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                      This works by



                                      • Creating a join between a static variable subquery (SELECT @id := 1 AS id) and a static set of 10 rows in this case(maximum depth)

                                      • using a subquery in the select to traverse the tree and find all the parents or child nodes

                                      The purpose of the join is to create a result set of 10 rows, so that the subquery in the select is executed 10 times.



                                      Alternatively, if you do not know the maximum depth, you could replace the joined subquery with



                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 1 FROM folder) temp


                                      or in order to avoid all the union selects above, use with a limit:



                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 1 FROM folder LIMIT 100) temp


                                      References:
                                      - Hierarchical queries in MySQL






                                      share|improve this answer















                                      Suppose you know the maximum depth of the tree, you could "create" a loop to get what you want:



                                      Get parent nodes:



                                      SELECT @id :=
                                      (
                                      SELECT parent_id
                                      FROM folders
                                      WHERE id = @id
                                      ) AS folderId, vars.id
                                      FROM (
                                      SELECT @id := 7 AS id
                                      ) vars
                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                      WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                      Get child nodes:



                                      SELECT @id :=
                                      (
                                      SELECT GROUP_CONCAT(id)
                                      FROM folders
                                      WHERE FIND_IN_SET(parent_id, @id)
                                      ) AS folderIds, vars.id
                                      FROM (
                                      SELECT @id := 1 AS id
                                      ) vars
                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 0 AS nbr UNION ALL SELECT 1 UNION ALL SELECT 2
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 3 UNION ALL SELECT 4 UNION ALL SELECT 5
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 6 UNION ALL SELECT 7 UNION ALL SELECT 8
                                      UNION ALL SELECT 9) temp
                                      WHERE @id IS NOT NULL


                                      This works by



                                      • Creating a join between a static variable subquery (SELECT @id := 1 AS id) and a static set of 10 rows in this case(maximum depth)

                                      • using a subquery in the select to traverse the tree and find all the parents or child nodes

                                      The purpose of the join is to create a result set of 10 rows, so that the subquery in the select is executed 10 times.



                                      Alternatively, if you do not know the maximum depth, you could replace the joined subquery with



                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 1 FROM folder) temp


                                      or in order to avoid all the union selects above, use with a limit:



                                      INNER JOIN (
                                      SELECT 1 FROM folder LIMIT 100) temp


                                      References:
                                      - Hierarchical queries in MySQL







                                      share|improve this answer














                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited 2 days ago

























                                      answered 2 days ago









                                      Jannes BotisJannes Botis

                                      7,73421227




                                      7,73421227



























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded
















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55288840%2fget-parents-and-children-of-tree-folder-structure-in-my-sql-8-and-no-ctes%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Kamusi Yaliyomo Aina za kamusi | Muundo wa kamusi | Faida za kamusi | Dhima ya picha katika kamusi | Marejeo | Tazama pia | Viungo vya nje | UrambazajiKuhusu kamusiGo-SwahiliWiki-KamusiKamusi ya Kiswahili na Kiingerezakuihariri na kuongeza habari

                                          SQL error code 1064 with creating Laravel foreign keysForeign key constraints: When to use ON UPDATE and ON DELETEDropping column with foreign key Laravel error: General error: 1025 Error on renameLaravel SQL Can't create tableLaravel Migration foreign key errorLaravel php artisan migrate:refresh giving a syntax errorSQLSTATE[42S01]: Base table or view already exists or Base table or view already exists: 1050 Tableerror in migrating laravel file to xampp serverSyntax error or access violation: 1064:syntax to use near 'unsigned not null, modelName varchar(191) not null, title varchar(191) not nLaravel cannot create new table field in mysqlLaravel 5.7:Last migration creates table but is not registered in the migration table

                                          은진 송씨 목차 역사 본관 분파 인물 조선 왕실과의 인척 관계 집성촌 항렬자 인구 같이 보기 각주 둘러보기 메뉴은진 송씨세종실록 149권, 지리지 충청도 공주목 은진현