Great. What about sqlite?
--
Thadeus
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:41 AM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
> In postgresql you get it native:
>
> Field('yourtfield',SQLCustomType('integer','SERIAL PRIMARY
> KEY',encoder=(lambda x: int(x)),decoder=(lambda x:x)))
>
> On Jun 9, 5:28 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote:
>> That is the thing, its *almost* the same, but its not a true postgres
>> sequence. Postgres already has many years of development making sure
>> their auto number works, why can't I just use that instead of trying
>> to hack around the limitations of a system?
>>
>> I don't have a choice. I *must* have native support for autonumber, or
>> I have to use another system that already allows me to.
>>
>> --
>> Thadeus
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
>> > If it were possible to do a SQL insert without the dummy filed this
>> > almost the same as creating a sequence. web2py can create a table
>> > without any field but the "id", but I do not do not how to do an
>> > insert without any field value.
>>
>> > On Jun 8, 8:12 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote:
>> >> This *might* work. You are right, it is still horrible... It might be
>> >> *effectively* accomplishing the same thing that sequences do on
>> >> PostgreSQL, however I still wouldn't use it in production as it feels
>> >> "hacky". I already have to re-design this table, so I might as well do
>> >> it 100% right.
>>
>> >> I never expected the scale of inserts that happened yesterday and
>> >> today, nor had any proper benchmarking been done previously if it
>> >> could handle this kind of sudden rush of traffic.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Thadeus
>>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
>> >> > I know this horrible but it does solve some of the problems...
>>
>> >> > db.define_table('whopper_seq',Field('dummy'))
>>
>> >> > db.define_table('yourtable',...
>> >> > Field("whopper_id", "integer",compute=lambda r:
>> >> > db.whopper_seq.insert(dummy=None))
>> >> > ...)
>>
>> >> > On Jun 7, 8:29 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I have a problem.
>>
>> >> >> I have this in the database....
>>
>> >> >> Field("whopper_id", "string", default=None, unique=True),
>>
>> >> >> The thing with whopper_id is it always stores numbers. Said numbers
>> >> >> are anywhere from 20000 to 60000.
>>
>> >> >> Also upon entering a new entry, I do the following
>>
>> >> >> last_whopper_id = db(db.table.id > 0).select(db.table.whopper_id,
>> >> >> orderby=~db.table.whopper_id, limit=(0,1)).first().whopper_id
>> >> >> db.insert(whopper_id = (int(last_whopper_id) + 1))
>>
>> >> >> So I do all this juju just to get the number to autoincrement.
>>
>> >> >> The problem is, this structure is bad... first I'm storing integers in
>> >> >> a string field, and then manually incrementing them!!!!
>>
>> >> >> I get errors like... IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates
>> >> >> unique constraint "table_whopper_id_key"... when two requests come in
>> >> >> to create a record within miliseconds of each other.
>>
>> >> >> Here is where I need some help please.
>>
>> >> >> I need to convert this entire field, into an autoincrementing integer
>> >> >> performed by the database, however ALL current whopper_ids must stay
>> >> >> EXACTLY the same.
>>
>> >> >> I don't know how to accomplish this with web2py. I know what I want...
>>
>> >> >> Field("whopper_id", "integer", unique=True, autoincrement=True)
>>
>> >> >> But how do I convert all existing whopper_ids over and keep them the
>> >> >> exact same?
>>
>> >> >> Is this even possible with web2py and the DAL?
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Thadeus
>
