Re: unique ascending numbers
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2003
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 50219
interpreted = N
texte = I should know this, but I'm curious, what happens to concurrent users when they attempt to append to a database that has an [exclusivelock] on it? Will their appends be made after the [/exclusivelock] is encountered or do they get database is busy error message? What are the chances that their append info is lost because of any delays caused by the [exclusivelock]?GK On 9.5.2003 23:16 Uhr, Joe D'Andrea
wrote:>> Do you have 5.x? If so then use &autonumber=field and you are done, no extra >> processing! > > You don't know that. You can say that it's easier to code for use > mere mortals, but do we know that the processing behind > &autonumber=field is less CPU intensive then a search to find the > maximum value in a field and then adding one to it?Joe,Scott explained it to me that with the autonumber it is more efficient.We have run into problem were only 5 people tried to add a new record. The template was giving each a new ID. Well, it happened that some of them got the same ID.So we have to wrap [exclusivelock] around the search to find the next higher value and then do a append. I think &autonumber=ID is better:-)Sincerely, Nitai Aventaggiato CEO ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
I should know this, but I'm curious, what happens to concurrent users when they attempt to append to a database that has an [exclusivelock] on it? Will their appends be made after the [/exclusivelock] is encountered or do they get database is busy error message? What are the chances that their append info is lost because of any delays caused by the [exclusivelock]?GK On 9.5.2003 23:16 Uhr, Joe D'Andrea wrote:>> Do you have 5.x? If so then use &autonumber=field and you are done, no extra >> processing! > > You don't know that. You can say that it's easier to code for use > mere mortals, but do we know that the processing behind > &autonumber=field is less CPU intensive then a search to find the > maximum value in a field and then adding one to it?Joe,Scott explained it to me that with the autonumber it is more efficient.We have run into problem were only 5 people tried to add a new record. The template was giving each a new ID. Well, it happened that some of them got the same ID.So we have to wrap [exclusivelock] around the search to find the next higher value and then do a append. I think &autonumber=ID is better:-)Sincerely, Nitai Aventaggiato CEO ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Gary Krockover
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
2.0Beta Command Ref (can't find this instruction) (1997)
Directory Overload (1998)
[url] issue (2000)
Mac to Windows (2000)
Ooops..Broswer Info.txt (was Web*SSL and WebCatalog) (1997)
Show next 2 examples that work (1997)
Why is [authenticate] not recognizing [username] on all sitedirectories? (2000)
authenticating a second user (1997)
ODBC on OSX continued (2002)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
MacAuthorize order data fields WAS:How To question... (1997)
Keep away (1997)
Projects & Contractors (1997)
Warning: 50 [MATH] Variable Limit per page (1998)
Security Question (1997)
WebCat2 as a chat server? (1997)
WebCat2 - Getting to the browser's username/password data (1997)
Error:Too many nested [xxx] contexts (1997)
WebCatalog-NT?'s (1996)
Exclude by date - multiple (1997)