On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 09:22 -0500, Alan Runyan wrote:
> It seems like such an easy goal: autoincremental integers for a
> container.  Is this such a problem because of the ZODB architecture?
> or lack there of?  There are two database primitives that everyone
> appears to want:
>   - autoincrementing integers for containers (tables)
>   - indexes (not in application)
> The new generation of databases (couchdb, tokyo cabinet, hypertable,
> etc) autoincrementing is usually absent.  Though these data containers
> usually have index support.

ZODB has autoincrement support for one type: OIDs.

The problem of autoincrement is that this needs to be handled outside
the scope of transactions.

In a distributed fashion this seems rather hard to do in comparison to
just buying into conflicts.

The indexes are hard too. We have gocept.objectquery which is (still) in
a proof-of-concept state, although I'm getting really motivated WRT
using it for migrations.


Christian Theune · c...@gocept.com
gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany
http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1
Zope and Plone consulting and development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org

Reply via email to