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:

    
  1. ExclusiveLock (was: Re: unique ascending numbers) (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
  2. Re: unique ascending numbers (Gary Krockover 2003)
  3. Re: unique ascending numbers (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
  4. Re: unique ascending numbers (Scott Anderson 2003)
  5. Re: unique ascending numbers (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  6. Re: unique ascending numbers (Scott Anderson 2003)
  7. Re: unique ascending numbers (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  8. Re: unique ascending numbers (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  9. Re: unique ascending numbers (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  10. Re: unique ascending numbers (Laurent Bache 2003)
  11. Re: unique ascending numbers (John Peacock 2003)
  12. Re: unique ascending numbers (Laurent Bache 2003)
  13. Re: unique ascending numbers (John Peacock 2003)
  14. Re: unique ascending numbers (Chris List Recipient 2003)
  15. Re: unique ascending numbers (Joe D'Andrea 2003)
  16. Re: unique ascending numbers (Joe D'Andrea 2003)
  17. Re: unique ascending numbers (John Peacock 2003)
  18. Re: unique ascending numbers (Christer Olsson 2003)
  19. Re: unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
  20. Re: unique ascending numbers (Christer Olsson 2003)
  21. Re: unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
  22. Re: unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
  23. Re: unique ascending numbers (John Peacock 2003)
  24. Re: unique ascending numbers (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
  25. Re: unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
  26. Re: unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
  27. Re: unique ascending numbers (Kenneth Grome 2003)
  28. Re: unique ascending numbers (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
  29. Re: unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
  30. Re: unique ascending numbers (Nitai @ ComputerOil 2003)
  31. unique ascending numbers (marc@kaiwi.com (Marc Kaiwi) 2003)
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:

Searching for (field1 OR field2) AND field3 (2000) Can't ping (problem with [shell]) SOLVED (2006) I've been thinking (2002) Opinion: [input] should be called [output] ... (1997) Verifying both name and password (was: New Problem) (1997) Close Databases Crash? (1998) Multiple radio buttons (1998) linetiems in thankyou.tpl (1997) [Fwd: Rotating Banners ... (was LinkExchange)] (1997) Grant, please help me ... (1997) Problem displaying search result (1997) 2nd Request for help/advice on variable pricing (2000) Download Question (1997) Time to opensource? was [SMSI] WebDNA is too good to (2006) Interfacing WC with mail server (1998) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997) New WebDNA Solutions ... (1997) [WebDNA] Database Column Update (2015) WebCat2 - [SendNews] (1997) Navigator 4.01 (1997)