Re: ORDER BY vs MIN to implement FIFO

From: D Rolfe <dwrolfeFRUITBAT_at_orindasoft.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:45:02 +0100
Message-ID: <MTWCc.3166$Z14.3895@news.indigo.ie>

Turkbear wrote:

>
> A sequence will be , by definition,sequential ( unless explicitly altered or created with a CYCLE and MIN/MAX parameters ,
> in which case the uniqueness would also be lost) but it may not be an uninterrupted sequence however since rollbacks, etc
> will leave gaps in the sequence-
> ( it could be 1,3,7, 21,45 - but not 1,3,2,4,17,6,28)
>
>

Your are assuming that the application is smart enough not to hang around and waste time between obtaining NEXTVAL and creating the record that uses it. If there is user interaction involved the time lag could be days and 'sequentiall-ness' could be lost.

David Rolfe
Orinda Software
Dublin, Ireland Received on Fri Jun 25 2004 - 09:45:02 CDT