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:
[/application] error? (1997)
[WebDNA] [OT] Need to add second SSL host - what are my options? (2010)
gateway application timeouts (1998)
Public beta 4 of WebCatalog 4.0 is now available (2000)
WebCatalog stalls (1998)
Help name our technology! (1997)
A Global Variable (1997)
WebDNA Developer Resource Center (2002)
Country & Ship-to address & other fields ? (1997)
Problem (1997)
Database Options (1997)
WebCatalog plugin, FireSite and PIXO (2000)
PCS Frames (1997)
question on [delete] (1998)
Protecting Images (2003)
form crasehes server (1997)
Uh...can someone help me out with the b10? (1997)
SSL (1998)
ReadDateFormat (1998)
WebCatalog NT beta 18 problem (1997)