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
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
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.
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
mysql sql hierarchical-data
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
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
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
add a comment |
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.
1
Note that under this model, adding a new item will costo(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 alsoO(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
add a comment |
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.
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
@MarcAlffN²/2
is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number isN * average_depth
. For a balanced binary tree it isN * 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
add a comment |
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
.
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
@surpavancross join (select @l := 3) init_list
is a "trick" to avoid an extra queryset @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 theid
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
|
show 3 more comments
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);
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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:
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.
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
1
Note that under this model, adding a new item will costo(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 alsoO(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
add a comment |
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.
1
Note that under this model, adding a new item will costo(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 alsoO(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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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 costo(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 alsoO(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
add a comment |
1
Note that under this model, adding a new item will costo(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 alsoO(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
add a comment |
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.
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
@MarcAlffN²/2
is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number isN * average_depth
. For a balanced binary tree it isN * 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
add a comment |
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.
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
@MarcAlffN²/2
is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number isN * average_depth
. For a balanced binary tree it isN * 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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
@MarcAlffN²/2
is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number isN * average_depth
. For a balanced binary tree it isN * 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
add a comment |
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
@MarcAlffN²/2
is the worst case - when you have a single chain, which is not really a tree. The exact number isN * average_depth
. For a balanced binary tree it isN * 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
add a comment |
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
.
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
@surpavancross join (select @l := 3) init_list
is a "trick" to avoid an extra queryset @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 theid
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
.
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
@surpavancross join (select @l := 3) init_list
is a "trick" to avoid an extra queryset @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 theid
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
.
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
.
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
@surpavancross join (select @l := 3) init_list
is a "trick" to avoid an extra queryset @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 theid
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
|
show 3 more comments
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
@surpavancross join (select @l := 3) init_list
is a "trick" to avoid an extra queryset @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 theid
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
|
show 3 more comments
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);
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
add a comment |
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);
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
add a comment |
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);
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);
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
answered Mar 28 at 21:38
Abdelkarim EL AMELAbdelkarim EL AMEL
44835
44835
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
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
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
answered Mar 29 at 13:23
GroGro
43827
43827
add a comment |
add a comment |
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:
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.
add a comment |
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:
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.
add a comment |
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:
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.
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:
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.
answered Mar 30 at 20:43
surpavansurpavan
66342455
66342455
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Jannes BotisJannes Botis
7,73421227
7,73421227
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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