Thanks guys for all the help, I'll have something to digest now and learned already a lot!
Just a short reply to the ORM versus SQL issue: Yes you are right, you have to pay for the abstraction but then, if you manage to fit it all in, it pays off. I can see it with lots of scripts I developed for an Oracle database at work (without RDBO) and now everything will be moved to MySQL (not my decision). I will have to rewrite almost everything. If I had known of RDBO the time I wrote the original scripts (and Oracle support existed then), the move had been a one liner. I don't want to do the same mistake again but I agree that some SQL is all right as long as it is properly encapsulated and if it is really worth it. On 5 Dec 2006 at 14:15, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > You will never have perfectly sequenced numbers, unless you're willing to > accept a fairly serious slowdown in assigning those numbers. The biggest > problem is rolled-back transactions: if the transaction might involve your > incremented number, you will have to serialize the entire transaction by > locking the table providing the sequential number. > [...] > I hope your business rules permit such a sequence, because the alternative is > horrible performance. Thats fine. They only have to be unique and the last number should give an idea of the total number of invoices of the year. Cheers, Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Rose-db-object mailing list Rose-db-object@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rose-db-object
