On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:59:27PM -0400, Eric E wrote:
> - have the sequence preallocation table hold only numbers with status
> being available or pending, i.e., delete numbers once they have been
> allocated. This leaves on two possible statuses: available and pending.
I would argue that yo
Hmm that's a really intesting idea, Tino. Since we're probably
talking about 100 numbers max, a query on this table would work
fairly fast, and operationally simple. I'll think about that.
Thanks,
Eric
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Hi,
Am Mi, den 20.10.2004 schrieb Eric E um 19:52:
Hi Tin
Hi,
Am Mi, den 20.10.2004 schrieb Eric E um 19:52:
> Hi Tino,
> Many thanks for helping me.
>
> I know that the sequence issue is a troubling one for many on the list.
> Perhaps if I explain the need for a continuous sequence I can circumvent
> some of that:
>
> This database is for a
Hi Andrew,
I had basically started working on an idea like the second approach,
but had not been able to put the status element so clearly. I really
like the statuses of available, pending, and granted.
There's one more twist I think I can use to optimize this: once a number
is assigned, it
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 01:52:59PM -0400, Eric E wrote:
> One thought I had, and I'd love to hear what people think of this, is to
> build a table of storage location numbers that are available for use.
> That way the search for new numbers could be pushed off until some
> convenient moment wel
Hi Tino,
Many thanks for helping me.
I know that the sequence issue is a troubling one for many on the list.
Perhaps if I explain the need for a continuous sequence I can circumvent
some of that:
This database is for a laboratory, and the numbers in sequence
determine storage locations f
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:57:42AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Now, how do you handle the cases where either the transaction fails
> so you can't set it to 3? Simple: your client captures errors and
> then sets the value back to 1 later.
Has anyone read "the Sagas paper" by Garcia-Molina? T
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:19:05AM -0400, Eric E wrote:
> My users will draw a number or numbers from the sequence and write to
> the field. Sometimes, however, these sequence numbers will be discarded
> (after a transaction is complete), and thus available for use. During
> the transaction, h
Hi,
On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 01:16, Eric E wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a question about sequences. I need a field to have values with
> no holes in the sequence. However, the values do not need to be in order.
>
> My users will draw a number or numbers from the sequence and write to
> the field.
Far from being a perfect idea but a faster solution than stepping through
all holes:
1) Create a second table containing only one field of type of your key.
2) When you delete an entry place the delete key value in your second table
3) If you insert a new entry into your old table and your new tab
Hi,
I have a question about sequences. I need a field to have values
with no holes in the sequence. However, the values do not need to be in
order.
My users will draw a number or numbers from the sequence and write to
the field. Sometimes, however, these sequence numbers will be discarded
Hi,
I have a question about sequences. I need a field to have values with
no holes in the sequence. However, the values do not need to be in order.
My users will draw a number or numbers from the sequence and write to
the field. Sometimes, however, these sequence numbers will be discarded
(
I'm not sure but I don't think that's safe since nextval doesn't lock the
sequence until the setval occurs. Though it might be unlikely to actually
occur in real life.
You could create a table with as many entries as you will ever need and then
select nextval() from that table and read all the
Oscar Tuscon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm looking at ways to get batches of sequence values s faster. I don't want to set
> cache or increment to a large number for a variety of reasons. I need to grab id's
> in batches of varying numbers at various times, from 1 to several thousand at once
Sorry I should have added that the trigger needs to create a new keyword
record if the join in the trigger fails to locate the keyword in the
keyword table.
Hopefully you can create the trigger yourself.
The keyword table is effectively a distinct list of all keywords inserted
into the data table
How about using two tables; one to hold the keyword and its (last
allocated) sequence value, and the second to store your data as below.
create table Keyword (
keyword varchar(32),
sequence integer,
primary key(keyword)
)
create table Data (
id serial,
sequence int,
keyword varchar(32
I'm working on an idea that uses sequences.
I'm going to create a table like this:
id serial,
sequence int,
keyword varchar(32),
text text
for every keyword there will be a uniq sequence for it eg:
id, sequence, keyword
1, 1, foo, ver1
2, 1, bar, bar ver1
3, 2, foo, ver2
4, 2, bar, bar ver2
etc.
17 matches
Mail list logo
