Way back when I was working in an Oracle shop I took the CONNECT_BY for granted. Now I'm stuck working with SQL Server 2005 and have some nasty object hierarchies. Specifically, we have a self referencing table where all child records have a column with their parent's id. Currently we have a view that maps children to levels in the hierarchy and a nasty query that does the heavy lifting to connect parents with their children. While this method works, it is far from elegant and reeks of taint. I'm just curious how other people retrieve hierarchical data from SQL Server 2005.
+1
A:
in SQL Server 2005 you can use Common Table Expressions (CTE) for this.
Mladen Prajdic
2008-10-24 22:51:08
the recursive force is WITH() you. har har har.
Darren Kopp
2008-10-24 22:54:34
Could you show an example?
2008-11-10 21:55:51
+11
A:
This creates your typical hierarchical table and uses a CTE to select the hierarchy structure and create a path for each item.
CREATE TABLE tblHierarchy (ID int, ParentID int NULL, Name varchar(128));
INSERT INTO tblHierarchy VALUES (1, NULL, '1');
INSERT INTO tblHierarchy VALUES (2, NULL, '2');
INSERT INTO tblHierarchy VALUES (3, NULL, '3');
INSERT INTO tblHierarchy VALUES (4, 1, '1.1');
INSERT INTO tblHierarchy VALUES (5, 1, '1.2');
INSERT INTO tblHierarchy VALUES (6, 4, '1.1.1');
WITH Parent AS
(
SELECT
ID,
ParentID,
Name AS Path
FROM
tblHierarchy
WHERE
ParentID IS NULL
UNION ALL
SELECT
TH.ID,
TH.ParentID,
CONVERT(varchar(128), Parent.Path + '/' + TH.Name) AS Path
FROM
tblHierarchy TH
INNER JOIN
Parent
ON
Parent.ID = TH.ParentID
)
SELECT * FROM Parent
OUTPUT:
ID ParentID Path
1 NULL 1
2 NULL 2
3 NULL 3
4 1 1/1.1
5 1 1/1.2
6 4 1/1.1/1.1.1
Mark S. Rasmussen
2008-10-24 22:54:38
+1
A:
Read this:
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/hierarchical-data-database/2/
It should give you some ideas...
jonnii
2008-10-24 22:55:43
Yes, nested sets are definitely the way to go for unlimited hierarchies in an RDBMS. Sitepoint's description makes it sounds a bit more complicated than it actually is, and implementations can be simplified, eg. by having a 'rank order' and 'rank of next sibling' instead of 'left' and 'right'.
bobince
2008-10-24 23:34:48
+2
A:
Having used both, I found CONNECT BY is somewhat more flexible and easier to use than CTE's. The question is not dissimilar to one I answered a few weeks ago. See Here for a brief comparison of CONNECT BY and CTE's and Here for an example of a query using CTE's.
ConcernedOfTunbridgeWells
2008-10-24 22:58:00