Re: ORDER BY vs MIN to implement FIFO

In message <MTWCc.3166$Z14.3895_at_news.indigo.ie>, D Rolfe <dwrolfeFRUITBAT_at_orindasoft.com> writes
>
>
>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
>

Once again it seems a simple question on a very specific area results in more responses from a side issue. If anyone ever raises a question about the use of sequences for this purpose, I might contribute my 2 penneth.

My question regarding relative merits of MIN vs ORDER BY is still valid if viewed as an illustrative example, and any ideas would be gratefully received.

Kind regards,

Saeed

sr_ng 786 Received on Sat Jun 26 2004 - 15:18:52 CDT