Kenneth C Stahl wrote:
>
> The sequence numbers would only wrap if the counter is too small. Oracle is
> capable of some pretty large numbers. If you define the sequence number as a
> column defined simply as NUMBER I bet it would take you a couple of
> lifetimes before it will wrap.
>
> Ken
>
> b_rich2_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I have to put records into a table, and later retrieve them in the order
> > in which they were placed. I have a very very large number of entries to
> > be placed in a live system. The records are logs of important events in
> > the system.
> >
> > My first thought was to use the unix time stamp to place as the field to
> > order on, but there will probably be many entries entered in rapid
> > succession. Thus many entries could be entered at the same time stamp
> > interval.
> >
> > I then though of having a sequence number associated with each record,
> > increasing one by one with each record stored. This will work well until
> > the sequence numbers begin to wrap. If they are retrieved in order of
> > sequence number, and then they wrap, the records entered after the wrap
> > (sequences 1,2,3,4 etc) will all of a sudden be pulled out before the
> > earlier records with high sequence numbers.
> >
> > Another idea is to just use the sequence numbers, and re-boot the box
> > every few weeks when the sequence numbers get high, but this is really
> > unacceptable in the environment where this will be run.
> >
> > Does anyone know how to get around this problem? Any help would be
> > GREATLY appreciated.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Using sysdate in a column to timestamp the entrys would also work b/c
time goes down to ms. it may physically only show date and basic time,
but time is recorded down to the ms. And when you run a query it uses
that precision to sort the records
Received on Fri Jul 09 1999 - 08:18:41 CDT
