Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Why Oracle don't have AUTO_INCREMENT as in MySQL
On Apr 27, 8:20 am, hasta..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> On 26 avr, 06:03, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>
> > Galen Boyer wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, damor..._at_psoug.org wrote:
>
> > >> I thinkOracleis remarkably easy to use given its power.
>
> > > And so do I. We are talking about a particular feature of theOracle
> > > engine. Not the entire engine. The sequence is not as easy to
> > > implement than an autoincremeting datatype, plain and simple.
>
> > What I am saying that simple does not trump functional.
>
> Daniel, I agree that faster *often* means more complex.
> It is not always so, however.
>
> For a counter-example, consider a many-rows insert
> SQL statement, which we all know is *damn* faster
> than an equivalent PL/SQL loop, yet is simpler
> in many respects.
>
> In the case of IDENTITY columns, it is hard to see
> why they would be slower than sequences.
>
> If anything, I would expect them to be marginally
> faster than assigning a sequence with a trigger,
> and on par with specification in an insert.
>
> > Array processing with BULK COLLECT and FORALL is more complicated
> > than cursor loops. But it will be a cold day in heck before you see
> > me implementing cursor loops again.
>
> Again, I sympathize with this view.
>
> But dont forget that performance is not the only constraint.
> Development effort and maintainability are other that come
> to mind. I wouldn't mind a cursor loop in a rarely executed
> procedure if it is fast enough.
>
> In fine, the good engineer must find a solution that
> fulfills the requirements at the minimum cost
> (over the whole lifetime of the product)
>
> --- Raoul
No one ever calculates that minimum cost.
Did your ever find a program which has been developed for
*maintainability*. The basic rules for that were already laid out in
the 60's and 70's.
Yet programmers writing at the minimum cost hardcode *everything*
simply because maintenance costs are *never* calculated.
In the eyes of most developers the most efficient solution is the
solution with the least effort on their side, and the highest payment
from customer.
-- Sybrand Bakker Senior Oracle DBAReceived on Fri Apr 27 2007 - 06:42:40 CDT
![]() |
![]() |