Re: Stupidity or sequences?
From: Johan Eriksson <valpis_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:59:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CABz5TyDXz=gN4u=fNcssEAbaYdDFMAxhqcG-g0x9tdb1kmWTrA_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Kellerer <thomas.kellerer_at_mgm-tp.com
> wrote:
> Almost all DBMS support sequences nowadays.
> Hiding the specific syntax of each DBMS to obtain the next sequence value
> isn't really hard.
>
> Avoiding them means to settle on the limitations of one or two (limited)
> DBMS.
>
>
Not that familiar with other DB's , but have they advanced further than using identity and auto_increment?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:59:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CABz5TyDXz=gN4u=fNcssEAbaYdDFMAxhqcG-g0x9tdb1kmWTrA_at_mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Thomas Kellerer <thomas.kellerer_at_mgm-tp.com
> wrote:
> Almost all DBMS support sequences nowadays.
> Hiding the specific syntax of each DBMS to obtain the next sequence value
> isn't really hard.
>
> Avoiding them means to settle on the limitations of one or two (limited)
> DBMS.
>
>
Not that familiar with other DB's , but have they advanced further than using identity and auto_increment?
/johan
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Apr 15 2013 - 13:59:22 CEST