Il mercoledì 04 febbraio 2009 23:22:48 Brian Aker ha scritto: > 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".
I do find the monotonic behaviour of auto-increment useful, not from applications but when mining the data in a client > 2) Gaps don't (for the most part) exist). Well, auto-increment it's not strict on this, and cannot be trusted, so this one really isn't required. May I mention "auto-increment-offset" and "auto-increment-increment", that, when working with multiple servers permit to have cheap non-overlapping ids, these IMHO are quite useful and usable (Using these obviously discard point 1) > > 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? > +1 on the second one, a new type, don't discard the current behaviour plz > Cheers, > -Brian > Chers, Francesco _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
