I am not sure about the postgresql solution. Tell me how you do it in
SQL and i tell you how to do in web2pyese.
On Jun 9, 9:01 am, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote:
> 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
