Re: oracle sequence numbers
From: Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_dev.null>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:54:43 -0600
Message-ID: <Xns93065AA871CADpingottpingottbah_at_216.166.71.233>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:54:43 -0600
Message-ID: <Xns93065AA871CADpingottpingottbah_at_216.166.71.233>
tonkuma_at_jp.ibm.com (Tokunaga T.) wrote in news:8156d9ae.0301162329.72b01e90_at_posting.google.com:
> Even Microsoft acknowledged that their timestamp is different from
> standard.
Yup.
The problem that people don't realize is that there's currently no vendor support for SQL-92 timestamps as surrogate keys. For instance, in Sybase ASE, one has access to the _at__at_identity variable.
Perhaps after the vendors have added support, the wiseness of using SQL-92 timestamps can be discussed.
-- Pablo Sanchez, High-Performance Database Engineering http://www.hpdbe.comReceived on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 16:54:43 CET