Re: re-numbering pimary-key
From: Justin Cave <jocave_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 17 Dec 2003 15:41:38 -0800
Message-ID: <233b7a65.0312171541.19ed76a8_at_posting.google.com>
Date: 17 Dec 2003 15:41:38 -0800
Message-ID: <233b7a65.0312171541.19ed76a8_at_posting.google.com>
Michael Hill <hillmw_at_ram.lmtas.lmco.com> wrote in message news:<3FE09FDF.B2DFEDCD_at_ram.lmtas.lmco.com>...
> So, I am at a lost at how a cache size of 20 was causing my numbers to increment by 20, and then changing it
> to 0 is incrementing my numbers correctly.
If your database is shut down or your sequence ages out of the shared pool, the cached numbers are lost. Setting a cache size of 0 incurs a fair amount of performance overhead, but it does prevent the loss of sequence numbers to these two processes. There are still ways to "lose" sequence numbers where the cache is 0, though-- you're never guaranteed to have a gap-free sequence in Oracle.
Justin Cave Received on Thu Dec 18 2003 - 00:41:38 CET