David Walker wrote:
> I prefer the max depth method. Every tree I am aware of has a maximum usable
> depth.
>
> This should never be a problem in trees where keyid is unique.
>
I just sent in a patch using the ancestor check method. It turned out
that the performance hit was pretty small on a moderate sized tree.
My test case was a 220000 record bill-of-material table. The tree built
was 9 levels deep with about 3800 nodes. The performance hit was only
about 1%.
Are there cases where infinite recursion to some max depth *should* be
allowed? I couldn't think of any. If a max depth was imposed, what
should it be?
Joe