Stupidity or sequences?
From: Johan Eriksson <valpis_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:24:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CABz5TyBixgwYv7cP3+w55O8P6oPCOhkgHZKktwJzJP6qRDMJWA_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hi all,
I think most of us has seen someone trying to be smart or trying to gain database independencies by not using oracle sequence but instead roll their own system by using a table, and a row for each "sequence". Almost every attempt on this I yet have seen has been plagued with row lock contention or other concurrencies, scalability zero...
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:24:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CABz5TyBixgwYv7cP3+w55O8P6oPCOhkgHZKktwJzJP6qRDMJWA_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hi all,
I think most of us has seen someone trying to be smart or trying to gain database independencies by not using oracle sequence but instead roll their own system by using a table, and a row for each "sequence". Almost every attempt on this I yet have seen has been plagued with row lock contention or other concurrencies, scalability zero...
Have anyone actually seen some implementation of this kind work when load increase?
/johan
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Apr 12 2013 - 17:24:19 CEST