Re: One sequence or not?

Sequences NEVER guarantuee that there are no gaps (do an insert with a sequenced column, and roll back; sequences do NOT roll back).

Robbert.

"M Hashim" <m.a.n.hashim_at_sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht news:IeWx9.3408$w07.687870_at_news20.bellglobal.com...
> It's good on the maintenance side, for not having to maintain numerous
> sequences. In an object oriented environment, it's usually a single
> identifier, OID. It's simple and effiecient from a coding perspective.
>
> The negative, should you require continuous record identifier, having a
> single sequence will NOT give you continuous numbering. It will create
gaps.
> In some financial institutions, having gaps may be a problem Think about
it,
> from an auditing perspective.
>
>
> "Richard Kuhler" <noone_at_nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:IEUx9.63856$X9.22712785_at_twister.socal.rr.com...
> > I'm working on a project where they've used ONE Oracle sequence to
> > generate surrogate keys for all rows in all tables. This database will
> > be used for ad hoc queries and reports. Since an ID will only appear in
> > one table, the reasoning is that any incorrect joins will result in no
> > data being returned rather than incorrect data.
> >
> > Opinions? Experiences?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard Kuhler
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 12 2002 - 15:46:01 CST