Re: Sequences?

Daniel,

          I don't think the point is the difficulty of creating the sequence in the first place, or in using it.

The big problem arises when you have several potential sources of inserts/updates to your data. You cannot guarantee that they will all use the sequence (and some may actually not be able to).

If you are using it for something as important as key generation, then you have a very significant issue.

By the way, I am an Oracle fan myself. It's a very good database, but not a perfect one.

Tony Berrington

damorgan wrote:

> That you haven't needed the capabilities provided by Oracle's sequences is fine.
> Some people, many people perhaps, don't. But some of us do. And for us ...
> autonumbering would be useless. So are you saying you'd rather have something
> that limits you to only one possible usage ... or would you rather have
> something robust, flexible, and scalable?
>
> But I must state that I find the amount of whining over this to be amazing. Is
> creating and using a SEQUENCE more difficult than creating an autonumbered
> column? Lets see:
>
> SQL> CREATE SEQUENCE s;
>
> The total characters typed was 18 including spaces and the semicolon. that
> created the sequence. I'm a bit sore but I'll continue.
>
> Now I'll add the sequence number to the insert statement for the table:
>
> s.NEXTVAL,
>
> Well that took a total of 10 keystrokes including the comma at the end. Probably
> 11 if you hit the space bar before continuing with the rest of the insert
> statement.
>
> A total of 29 keystrokes.
>
> Damn I guess you are correct ... my fingers are hurting and I'm developing some
> kind of syndrome that is going to require extensive use of pain medication,
> antiinflammatory steroids, and physical therapy.
>
> Daniel Morgan
>
> Heinz Kiosk wrote:
>
> > > There is no relationship between MS Access's autonumbering and a SEQUENCE.
> > The
> > > autonumering is part of the table and is only capable of sequential
> > numbering.
> > > It has no flexibility, no programmability, and is strictly tied to a
> > single
> > > table. All it is is the following code built in and hidden from the end
> > user.
> > >
> > > SELECT MAX(numbering_field)
> > > INTO next_number
> > > FROM xyz;
> > >
> > > INSERT INTO xyz
> > > (numbering_field + 1, other_field1, other_field2)
> > > VALUES
> > > (next_number, someval1, someval2);
> > >
> > > Daniel Morgan
> >
> > Methinks Daniel doth protest too much ;). "All Autonumber/Identity is" is
> > something exteremely useful that answers 99% of needs for this kind of
> > thing. I've never wanted numbers that cut across tables and I've never
> > wanted anything other than incremental numbering in 20 years of db schema
> > design. I agree "create sequence" is more flexible than MS SQL identity or
> > MS Access autonumber or DB2 identity or Sybase....(long boring list of rival
> > technologies snipped); but sequences are also a pain in the arse when all
> > you want is a system generated identity (as supplied in easier form by every
> > other db platform I've ever seen). Also are you seriously suggesting that
> > the above is the algorithm that any db actually uses? I think not.
> > (particularly as you wrote it wrong, SQL syntax error. Also potential
> > problems with above algorithm with transactions and synchronicity. Never
> > mind)
> >
> > Regards
Received on Tue Feb 19 2002 - 03:45:30 CST