we are doing this, but using a sequence so we don't have the table
access contention.
seems to me the bigger problem is "why are they trying to put
additional meaning into the PK?"
- Brian P Andrews <bandrews_at_paychex.com> wrote:
> Our developers are proposing a database design for an OLTP
> application in
> which each table has a PK of the same type and size. In addition,
> each possible
> PK value can belong to at most one table.
>
> Each table insert would require a call to the a single function to
> get the
> next PK value and an additional table would be used to store the
> current set of
> values. (The developers want to put some additional meaning into a
> PK value and
> a sequence would not be sufficient, hence the need for the PK
> generating
> function and current value table).
>
> I've never seen this done before and I would think this application
> would
> suffer greatly from contention when performing a large number of
> concurrent
> inserts.
>
> Has anyone ever encountered a design like this? Is this a bad
> design?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Brian
>
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Rachel Carmichael
INET: wisernet100_at_yahoo.com
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Thu Oct 31 2002 - 09:09:26 CST
