we are doing this, but using a sequence so we don't have the table access contention.
seems to me the bigger problem is "why are they trying to put additional meaning into the PK?" --- Brian P Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our developers are proposing a database design for an OLTP > application in > which each table has a PK of the same type and size. In addition, > each possible > PK value can belong to at most one table. > > Each table insert would require a call to the a single function to > get the > next PK value and an additional table would be used to store the > current set of > values. (The developers want to put some additional meaning into a > PK value and > a sequence would not be sufficient, hence the need for the PK > generating > function and current value table). > > I've never seen this done before and I would think this application > would > suffer greatly from contention when performing a large number of > concurrent > inserts. > > Has anyone ever encountered a design like this? Is this a bad > design? > > Thanks. > > Brian > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: Rachel Carmichael INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
