On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Alan Runyan wrote:
> It seems like such an easy goal: autoincremental integers for a
That isn't the goal here.
> Is this such a problem because of the ZODB architecture?
It's such a problem because it isn't one problem (differing use cases)
and because of scalability.
> or lack there of? There are two database primitives that everyone
> appears to want:
> - autoincrementing integers for containers (tables)
People want to generate keys. The keys they want can vary depending on
ZODB already provides a mechanism for autogenerating unique ids. The
storage API uses this for generating object ids. It's been proposed
to add a general facility that could be used by applications.
Generating ids sequentially across threads, even if you avoid id
conflicts, is unattractive because you'll tend to provoke conflicts
when BTrees split.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org