Re: Why Oracle don't have AUTO_INCREMENT as in MySQL

On Apr 20, 12:03 am, Galen Boyer <galen_bo..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, damor..._at_psoug.org wrote:
> > Galen Boyer wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, damor..._at_psoug.org wrote:
> >>> howa wrote:
> >>>> Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
> >> Has its merit. I like the way sequences are not tied to a
> >> single
> >> table. Gives one much more flexibility.
>
> >>> No. Autoincrement is a brain-damaged way of creating surrogate
> >>> keys.
> >> And what, may I ask, is the non-brain damaged way of using
> >> sequences?
>
> > I wasn't referring to sequences. I was referring to autoincrementing
> > identity columns.
>
> I was asking how sequences aren't considered brain-damaged. They are
> used to create a surrogate key just like autoincrementing columns, and
> the autoincrementing surrogate key is what I'm assuming what you mean by
> brain damaged.
> --
> Galen Boyer-

those who tend to love AUTOINCREMENT tend to prefer autoincrementing surrogate keys. IOW, they use a surrogate rather than taking the time to identfy a valid Primary Key. laziness in one seems to follow laziness in the other.

To plagerize a Bill Cosby routine
Bill to programmer: why did you use an autoincrementing surrogate key when I told you three times not to do it? Progammer whines: I don't know
Bill (exasperated): Brain Damage!

(Parents would easily recognise the Bill Cosby routine. Listen to it if you get a chance. Very funny.) Received on Fri Apr 20 2007 - 12:44:22 CDT