It might also be done by keeping a last-revision table. Then you'd only select 1 record from that, and up the number.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Chris W <4rfv...@cox.net> wrote: > Johan De Meersman wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Carsten Pedersen <cars...@bitbybit.dk >> >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Wouldn't that strategy cause problems if one or more rows have been >>> deleted in the meantime? (i.e. sequence numbers 1-4 have been created, >>> row >>> 2 has been deleted - new sequence number would be 4). >>> >>> >>> >> >> Yeps. I'm none too sharp today, apparently. Max() it is. >> >> >> > > That may not be an issue in this case. Since it sounds like he is keeping > a revision history, I wouldn't be surprised if he plans on not allowing the > deleting of records, unless of course all of the revision history for a > given file Cluster/File are deleted. If that is the case the count would > work fine. If that is not the case, max may not work either since if the > last revision record has been deleted then using max will give faulty data > as well. Seems the only way for something like this to work is if you keep > the full revision history. Although I suppose that if you were to keep say > the most recent X revisions then the last revision would always be in the > table and max could work where count would not always. > > Chris W > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=vegiv...@tuxera.be > > -- Bier met grenadyn Is als mosterd by den wyn Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel