Brian Aker wrote: > Hi! > > Auto-increments have always had a set behavior... some of this worked > well, and some of it causes bottlenecks. > > 1) They always increase in value in the table. You can use them as a > "what came before what". > 2) Gaps don't (for the most part) exist). > > What are people's feelings about the above assumptions? Is it ok to > break them, or would it be better to add a different type which did not > have the above assumptions, and leave the old ones in?
So, with NDB (2) is true by default, but it's a terrible config. In a good config, gaps exist because batches of autoincrement values are pulled. I'd like to see (1) go away through config too... I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't be able to set autoincrement_increment = -1 and have it work. One of the other use-cases for them doesn't care about either 1 or 2, but they don't break anything - and that's the "give me a cheap unique id whos value has no meaning" case. I think that by default, most people expect 1 and 2 to be true, but I think that's mostly habit. Monty _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
