Re: SQL Sequence use cases -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: SQL Sequence use cases
From: David Gibbs <david@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:58:32 -0600
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On 11/25/2009 2:05 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:

There's a trade off between "sequential-ness" and performance,
particularly with multiple jobs using the same sequence.

Yeah, I thought about that too.

But I've always been of the opinion that an application should be designed first for functionality and then later for performance.

If all you really need is a surrogate key shared between tables, then
the defaults of NO ORDER and CACHE 20 provide the best performance.

I guess my biggest problem with the implementation is that the name 'sequence' implies a shared _sequential_ numeric value ... it's actually anything but that (at least by default). I think it would be more accurate to describe the concept as providing a _unique_ numeric value.

david

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: SQL Sequence use cases , Charles Wilt

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.