For the most cases I mentioned, we don't request a strict gapless sequence
for the Invoice ID, the essential requirement is unique.
We just hope that there is no obviously gap in most situations.
From the test of UPSERT, there are quite a few chances to generate a big
gap when UPSERT multi
In my example, I just give each record a different ID to access it
efficiently.
In our business cases, some times, we also use some prefix letter like
'SO', PO' combining with the current year, month and then a sequence
to make a invoice ID,
for example, SO201507_1001, PO201503_1280, etc.
As
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Yourfriend doudou...@gmail.com wrote:
for example, SO201507_1001, PO201503_1280, etc.
As these IDs would be the most important attribute to the business, so, we
hope there is no gap for the IDs.
That's a requirement I've heard a number of times before. If
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Yourfriend doudou...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestion: When a conflict was found for UPSERT, don't access the
sequence, so users can have a reasonable list of ID.
This is not technically feasible. What if the arbiter index is a serial PK?
The same thing can happen
On Tuesday 14 July 2015 11:33:34 Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Yourfriend doudou...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestion: When a conflict was found for UPSERT, don't access the
sequence, so users can have a reasonable list of ID.
This is not technically feasible. What if
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Gianni nasus.maxi...@gmail.com wrote:
Could there be a version of UPSERT where an update is tried, and if 0 records
are modified, an insert is done?
Just wondering, I haven't got am use-case for that. I don't mid gaps in
sequences.
Perhaps, if you don't
Hi, Hackers,
The feature of UPSERT was my most interested one of 9.5, I really like
need it.
I have test the different usages for this features like one record input,
multi records input,
and also more than 10,000 records upserting, all look great, thanks for
your work.
When I checked my
