Re: One sequence or not?

Ok Ok I should have read ahead before sending a reply.... I agree with Daniel

(Sybrand, DO NOT REPLY..., mea culpa...)

Robbert

"Robbert Van der Hoorn" <rvanderhoorn_at_wanadoo.nl> schreef in bericht news:3dd176b2$0$10853$8fcfb86b_at_news.wanadoo.nl...
> Sequences NEVER guarantuee that there are no gaps (do an insert with a
> sequenced column, and roll back; sequences do NOT roll back).
>
> Robbert.
>
> "M Hashim" <m.a.n.hashim_at_sympatico.ca> schreef in bericht
> news:IeWx9.3408$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 - 15:49:38 CST