Re: Database Design: unique PK across all tables

Database nuetral?

Is this a commercial app to be sold?

If not, why are you doing this?

I suggest you read Tom Kyte's comments about this in 'Expert: one-on-one Oracle'.

Essentially, you're paying for a lot of features you're not going to use.

Are you setting the FIPS level to force ANSI SQL compliance?

Jared

On Monday 04 November 2002 05:33, Brian P Andrews wrote:
> Thanks everyone.
>
> We're going forth with using a single sequence w/o any additional "meaning"
> put into the PK.
>
> Ian's recommendation of using the sys_guid function would be ideal,
> however, we are
> trying to remain database neutral at this point.
>
> Jared.Still_at_radisys.com wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> > As you pointed out, the design of this function will play
> > a rather important part in the performance of this app.
> >
> > The first thing I would question is the use of this column
> > as a PK. A generated number should be fine. PK's should
> > not carry any information in them, they're just an ID. A series
> > of sequences or any non-serialized method of generating
> > them would be appropriate.
> >
> > Regardless of whether this function generates a PK or a
> > UK, it needs to be designed to prevent serialization.
> >
> > e.g. Using a single row table with some kind of counter, or
> > any similar one-at-a-time key generation will really limit
> > the scalability of the app.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Jared
> >
> > "Brian P Andrews" <bandrews_at_paychex.com>
> > Sent by: root_at_fatcity.com
> > 10/31/2002 05:33 AM
> > Please respond to ORACLE-L
> >
> >
> > To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> > <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com> cc:
> > Subject: Database Design: unique PK across all tables
> >
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
> > --
> > Author:
> > INET: Jared.Still_at_radisys.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).

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jared Still
  INET: jkstill_at_cybcon.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).