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:
Sort Order on a page search (1997)
Is there a way......... (2000)
RE: what characters are replaced for tab and CR? (1998)
I'm having trouble using [url][interpret][math] together in lookup (1997)
Unix line endings (2003)
Size limit for tmpl editor ? (1997)
[WebDNA] Shared POP download (2010)
2.0 Info (1997)
Web Catalog vs. ICAT (1997)
Trying to loop for letters (1999)
Fed Ex Interaction (2003)
Looking for WebCatalog Linux experience/comments. (2001)
Major bug report on rootbeer (1997)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - showing [math] (1997)
For those of you not on the WebCatalog Beta... (1997)
Comments in db? (1997)
autocommit problem (1998)
Scoping rules in WebDNA 4.0 (2000)
Huge Problem installing Secure Certs (2006)
Problems passing [SKU] with $Replace in 2.0 (1997)