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:
redirect not passing vars (2004)
emailer (1997)
searching for last file in a directory (1999)
Help! WebCat2 bug (1997)
Bug or syntax error on my part? (1997)
Error:Too many nested [xxx] contexts (1997)
Extracting URL (2007)
WebCat2 - Getting to the browser's username/password data (1997)
Clean Code: Rules for inserting keyboard returns? (1997)
Using Web* mail instead of Emailer? (1999)
Warning: 50 [MATH] Variable Limit per page (1998)
Random ads (1998)
WebCat editing, SiteGuard & SiteEdit (1997)
Problems with [Search] param - Mac Plugin b15 (1997)
[WebDNA] An actual attempt to get WebDNA and MAMP Pro to work - assistance (2018)
[WebDNA] WebDNA slow processing (2011)
[WebDNA] Search encrypted field (2015)
5.0 Pricing (2003)
Post Limits (1998)
can WC render sites out? (1997)