Who cares what the ids are? what is the % of space remaining in the int64?!

I mean seriously wtf are you taking hilo ids and showing them to users?

Greg

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:37 AM, John Morales <[email protected]> wrote:
> While you're right, it's quite possible to avoid reaching the upper limit on
> of the data size limit, if this is what you consider good design, then good
> luck to you.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:34 AM, John Morales <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> A more realistic example.
>>
>> 3 web servers 200 tables, app reseting 5 times a day
>>
>> 3 * 5 * 200 = 3000 high values a day
>>
>> the high value is multiplied by the max_lo so in just 1 year your id's
>> will be in the 190 billion range..
>>
>>
>> While your'
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Erik Lundby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> . those reserved ranges are lost forever, which is wasteful
>>>
>>> </snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But what are you wasting?  With an int64 id and that default int16 max
>>> low you are talking about, wouldn’t  you have something like 140 trillion
>>> high values?
>>>
>>> So if you have 100 web servers resetting 3 times an hour, you will get
>>> 7200 high values used a day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In 19 billion years you can probably just switch to int128. J
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Erik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>>> Behalf Of John Morales
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:39 PM
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: [nhusers] Re: table hilo and application restarts/asp.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the increment generator does not support more than 1 concurrent
>>> session factory per database, which right now is all I need... And I guess I
>>> should re-evaluate this decision, this is one of those times where YAGNI
>>> isn't the best strategy as I might very well need to support scaling out.
>>>
>>> IMO, the concurrent sessionfactory support hilo has using reserved blocks
>>> of id's is inefficient, contrary to what the documentation says. Once the
>>> session factory is terminated. those reserved ranges are lost forever, which
>>> is wasteful. With the only option is to reduce the max_lo range cap, which
>>> just reduces the amount of potential waste. A more efficient generator that
>>> reuses those unused ranges while allowing a clustered environment is what I
>>> truly need.
>>>
>>> If I have some time I might help out with this.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/4/2 John Morales <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While looking into the source I saw that the increment generator does
>>> exactly what I need, it uses a cached copy of the max id for each table on
>>> appdomain start and assigns id's as necessary. Without having to hit the
>>> database for each insert.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mmmm... take care with it... what happen when you have 2 webserver ? or
>>> two application instance ?
>>> --
>>> Fabio Maulo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> This signature is intentionally left blank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This signature is intentionally left blank
>
>
>
> --
> This signature is intentionally left blank
>
> >
>



-- 
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"nhusers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to