| From: | Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Olin Oden <joden(at)Lee(dot)k12(dot)nc(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] Sequences... |
| Date: | 1998-07-29 09:30:58 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.96.980729102810.6410B-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, James Olin Oden wrote:
>
> I had a asked this question earlier and did not get a response, so here
> it is again.
>
> When implementing an "autoincrementing" field in several tables, is
> common practice to create sequence for each table, or is it OK to use
> just one sequence? I know right off the bat that if there was a
> requirement that there be no holes in the key for a particualr table
> that one sequence over multiple tables (like in check register) would
> not do, but if this requirment is not there, would having one sequnence
> for all (provided your projected number of total records in all the
> tables is less than 4 billion) tables be OK?
I don't see any problem there.
--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | root | 1998-07-29 09:50:02 | Problem in Grant and Revoke Query |
| Previous Message | Roderick A. Anderson | 1998-07-28 16:25:11 | Re: [SQL] select question |