acts_as_hausdorff_space is a gemified mixin for Rails ActiveRecord. It implements the nested set model for maintaining recursive trees in a database, but using real numbers rather than integers because real numbers are a Hausdorff Space and the integers aren't
This version 0.1.0 is a proof of concept and a run through of all the github/lighthouse/google-group ecology of a gem. It works and you're welcome to play with it and make comments, but don't trust it in production code just yet.
It's not a drop in replacement for acts_as_nested_set so watch out.
Make sure you have gems.github.com set up in your gem sources
sudo gem install acts-as-hausdorff-space
In environment.rb add config.gem "acts-as-hausdorff-space"
Create a migration with left and right columns using the biggest decimal representations available on your database.
<tt> acts_as_hausdorff_space </tt>
to your model.
Source is at git://github.com/JohnSmall/acts-as-hausdorff-space.git
Lighthouse bugtracking is at mindoro.lighthouseapp.com/projects/29279-acts_as_hausdorff_space/overview
Google group for discussion is at groups.google.com/group/acts_as_hausdorff_space
I'm at John Small
I was using the better_nested_set plugin in a territories model and trying to load all the countries in the world and all the regions and sub-regions and it was taking utterly ages. So I set about thinking what could be done to improve performance. I'd written the code for nested sets before a long time ago using Delphi & Interbase, so I knew the problems. But in the meantime I'd learned some topology theory so I had a name and a concept to put to what must have been starting everyone in the face . Hausdorff Spaces! Integers aren't a Hausdorff space but we're trying to implement a concept, namely nested sets, which are the defining characteristic of a Hausdorff space, so we have to write extra code to fudge integers to behave like they are a Hausdorff space and that is the source of the performance hit. So the obvious thing to do is to use real numbers which are a Hausdorff space and then the extra code and associated performance hit melts away. After some fussing about version 0.1.0 is now released. For small trees the overhead of using BigDecimal rather than integers makes this method slower, but as the trees get bigger the relative performance soon switches in favour of using BigDecimals. check the table at the bottom to see how big the performance improvements can be.
Joe Celko, an SQL guru, popularized the idea of using nested sets for databases back in his 1996 article reproduced here. Though the earliest description is in Kamfonas. Since it's usually a bad idea to go against the advice of an SQL guru every implementation I've seen follows his example in using integers to set the nesting boundaries. So every implementation has had to deal with the awkwardness that comes with using integers in a way they can't inherently be used. The description in Kamfonas recomends using a SKIP-VALUE to make sure you've got some space to put new entries in. Though the code for that is obviously going to be complicated because you'd need to work out a skip value for each node if you're adding a collection of nodes inside an already existing node. This is the kind of coding fudge people have to do to make nested sets maintainable.
This is copied from ThreeBit and is the example used in better_nested_sets. The example uses integers.
An easy way to visualize how a nested set works is to think of a parent entity surrounding all of its children, and its parent surrounding it, etc. So this tree:
root |_ Child 1 |_ Child 1.1 |_ Child 1.2 |_ Child 2 |_ Child 2.1 |_ Child 2.2
Could be visualized like this:
___________________________________________________________________ | Root | | ____________________________ ____________________________ | | | Child 1 | | Child 2 | | | | __________ _________ | | __________ _________ | | | | | C 1.1 | | C 1.2 | | | | C 2.1 | | C 2.2 | | | 1 2 3_________4 5________6 7 8 9_________10 11_______12 13 14 | |___________________________| |___________________________| | |___________________________________________________________________|
The numbers represent the left and right boundaries. The table then might look like this:
id | parent_id | lft | rgt | data 1 | | 1 | 14 | root 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | Child 1 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Child 1.1 4 | 2 | 5 | 6 | Child 1.2 5 | 1 | 8 | 13 | Child 2 6 | 5 | 9 | 10 | Child 2.1 7 | 5 | 11 | 12 | Child 2.2
To get all children of an entry parent, you
SELECT * WHERE lft IS BETWEEN parent.lft AND parent.rgt
To get the number of children, it's
(right - left - 1)/2
To get a node and all its ancestors going back to the root, you
SELECT * WHERE node.lft IS BETWEEN lft AND rgt
Pretty obviously if you wanted to add a new child with C.1.1 as parent you'll have to update the entire tree from 4 onwards because there is no integer between 3 and 4.
There is no integer between 3 and 4, but there are an uncountable infinity of real numbers between 3 and 4. That is the crux of the problem. Between any two real numbers there is always another real number, no matter how close they are. This property was first described by Archimedes and it's called the Archimedean property of real numbers
What that means is that for real numbers we can surround any two of them with disjoint open neighbourhoods and that is the defining property of a Hausdorff Space. That property of being able to put any two points inside disjoint sets of nearby points means you can have infinite levels of nesting. The notion of nested sets is inherently part of a Hausdorff space, but not of the integers, which is why you have to write lots of awkward slow code to maintain nested sets implemented with integers
The implementation is the same as above, with two differences. I'm not using parent_id because that defeats the main advantage of the nested set model over the adjaceny list model and I'm using real numbers. That means if we want to add a record between 3 and 4, we can make lft = 3.25 and rgt = 3.5, and we can keep on adding records to any depth or width of tree we like, without having to update the rest of the tree.
Computers don't use real numbers, they use binary arithmetic to emulate real numbers. That means the lovely idea has to get ugly when it meets the real world. There are maximum sizes for the real numbers used and also minimum sizes depending on the real number precision limits. But within those constraints we can implement the concept of nested sets using real numbers fairly easily. We just have to keep our calculations away from bumping up against the lower and upper limits. It means that there's going to be a limit to the number of children a parent node can own, and also a limit to the depth of the tree. Most trees used in nested sets in relational databases aren't very deep, but they can be very wide. When we add a new node into a gap in the tree we have to make sure it leaves a gap between itself and its siblings or the parent lefts and rights. That way we will always have some space to put a new record in the gap, as long as the gap isn't so small that we're bumping up against the limits of decimal precision. So when you set up your tables always choose the maximum precision for that database.
The other issue when we add a new record, we want to leave space for more records but we don't know in advance how many records to leave space for. We could do what's done in the integer implementations of nested sets, move every lft and rgt along a bit, but that is where the performance hit comes from. So we have to leave gaps and fill them as best we can. If each new node were to take up half of the remaining space between its siblings and the boundaries of its parent, then we'd pretty soon bump up against the decimal precision limit. To avoid that I've set things up so that there's a number called the #bias, which is a division factor. It works like this, I add a new child to a parent, I use the bias to work out where to place the child inside what ever gap remains, roughly (remaining gap)/bias. So the bigger the bias the less of the remaining gap is taken up. The default bias is one million, to allow for wide and shallow trees.
For small trees integers are faster, for large trees acts_as_hausdorff_space using BigDecimals are faster by a large margin. To get a rough estimate of performance I wrote a test which adds 1000 children to a root node, then goes through each child node adding children. This really hammers the integer implementation of nested sets since every new insertion requires updating every node to the right of the new insertion. The full test description and updated results are here.
No. of children added is the number of child nodes added to each of the 1000 children of the root. aahs = acts_as_hausdorff_space, bns = using the better_nested_set mixin.
| SQLite3 | MySQL | No of | aahs | bns | aahs | bns | children added 0 | 28 secs | 15 secs | 28 secs | 9 secs | 1 | 39 | 55 | 40 | 150 | 2 | 51 | 116 | 51 | 7,692 | 3 | 62 | 203 | 63 | 24,555 | 4 | 73 | 312 | 75 | I gave up | 5 | 84 | 444 | 87 | | 6 | 96 | 596 | 99 | | 7 | 109 | 765 | 113 | | 8 | 121 | 952 | 129 | | 9 | 131 | 1156 | 144 | |
As you can see adding children into large trees using acts_as_hausdorff_space (aahs) is nice and linear in the number of children added. Using the integer method implemented by better_nested_set things are much slower and on MySQL the time taken blows up quite quickly.
I'll be testing Postgres and trying to work out why MySQL blows up so badly.
Copyright © 2009 John Small. See LICENSE for details.