Re: Default column value of MAX +1 of column - possible in Oracle 9i?

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1111869158.551741_at_yasure...
> Dave wrote:
>
>> <fitzjarrell_at_cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:1111708769.142447.82560_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>"hpuxrac" <johnbhurley_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:1111701266.339020.78570_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Triggers are evil. They don't scale well and they make application
>>>>>>changes more awkward, time-consuming and expensive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Many of us are running with a whole bunch of insert triggers that
>>>>>supply a sequence value to generate unique row.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is very very very common.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>whch doesnt make it right or best practise
>>>
>>>I see no evidence in your post explaining why triggers are 'evil'.
>>>What, exactly, makse such triggers 'wrong'? This question has been
>>>asked in many forms in this thread and not one of the naysayers can
>>>prove the rhetoric to which they cling.
>>>
>>>Provide statistical evidence you are 'right' and we are 'wrong', or
>>>learn a different tune.
>>>
>>>
>>>David Fitzjarrell
>>>
>>
>>
>> im not the one that says triggers are evil.. My point was that using them
>> for generating an id for a unique row is not as good as doing it in the
>> insert statement (which is what I was replying to)
>
> If that is all you meant then I agree. But that is hardly what you wrote.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

point taken - and it was all that i meant Received on Sat Mar 26 2005 - 15:10:52 CST