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

From: Galen Boyer <galen_boyer_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 21 Apr 2007 20:10:01 -0500
Message-ID: <uodlhkpda.fsf@rcn.com>

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, damorgan_at_psoug.org wrote:
> Galen Boyer wrote:
>

>> 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.

>
> Not at all. Surrogate keys have their place in the real world.
>
> What I don't like is forced serialization of autoincrementing.

You don't like the implementation of autoincrementing. Yes, it isn't implemented in a great manner.

> What I don't like is typing the surrogate to a single object.

This definitely has its uses. Especially if you were to tie it with sequences.

> The Oracle sequence is a far more intelligent way to solve the
> problem.

The Oracle sequence is a far more powerful object that can be used to mimic autoincrementing keys. But that doesn't make it easier to implement for the developers.

-- 
Galen Boyer

Received on Sat Apr 21 2007 - 20:10:01 CDT