Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?

On 14 Apr 2007 06:27:46 -0700, "howa" <howachen@gmail.com> wrote:

>Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?

No. Oracle has something called SEQUENCE which isn't bound to any
column, or table. THIS is very handy.

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

On Apr 14, 9:58 am, sybra...@hccnet.nl wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2007 06:27:46 -0700, "howa" <howac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
>
> No. Oracle has something called SEQUENCE which isn't bound to any
> column, or table. THIS is very handy.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

I agree with Sybrand. As someone who every now and then has to work
with SQL Server the auto-increment feature which has its advantages
also has its fair share of disadvantages when dealing with the row
data.

IMHO -- Mark D Powell --

howa wrote:
> Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?

No. Autoincrement is a brain-damaged way of creating surrogate
keys.

I will grant it may be handy.
But then so are a lot of other bad habits.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, damorgan@psoug.org wrote:
> howa wrote:
>> Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?

Has its merit. I like the way sequences are not tied to a single
table. Gives one much more flexibility.


> No. Autoincrement is a brain-damaged way of creating surrogate
> keys.

And what, may I ask, is the non-brain damaged way of using sequences?

--
Galen Boyer

> No. Oracle has something called SEQUENCE which isn't bound to any
> column, or table. THIS is very handy.
>
> --
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

i agreed SEQUENCE is flexible, but in 99% of my applications,
AUTO_INCREMENT is far than enough.

so i just wonder why Oracle implements like this.

i heard before using SEQUENCE will have some benefits related to
performance, but i forgot...

On Apr 14, 7:27 am, "howa" <howac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?

Seems SEQUENCE is very handy and natural. Why don't others implement
SEQUENCE?

/Hans

On 4¤ë15¤é, ¤U¤È12®É04¤À, "Fuzzy" <fuzzy.greybe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 7:27 am, "howa" <howac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
>
> Seems SEQUENCE is very handy and natural. Why don't others implement
> SEQUENCE?
>
> /Hans

I can't agree SEQUENCE is more handy than AUTO_INCREMENT as you need
to do the same thing by two statements.

Also, in real world, use of AUTO_INCREMENT as primary key (e.g. id) is
in fact, quite intuitive.

On 15 Apr 2007 01:12:05 -0700, "howa" <howachen@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4??15??, ?U??12??04??, "Fuzzy" <fuzzy.greybe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 7:27 am, "howa" <howac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
>>
>> Seems SEQUENCE is very handy and natural. Why don't others implement
>> SEQUENCE?
>>
>> /Hans
>
>I can't agree SEQUENCE is more handy than AUTO_INCREMENT as you need
>to do the same thing by two statements.
>
>Also, in real world, use of AUTO_INCREMENT as primary key (e.g. id) is
>in fact, quite intuitive.
>

My, my, typing two statements instead of one! What a problem!
SEQUENCE is quite handy, as it is allows for multiple, similar tables
with ONE surrogate.
Also, in real world, AUTO_INCREMENT is equally artificial as SEQUENCE.

But if you want to stick to Mickeysoft products, and don't want to
admit the Oracle solution is better, you are by all means invited to
do so.

--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

On Apr 15, 2:12 am, "howa" <howac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4月15日, 下�12時04分, "Fuzzy" <fuzzy.greybe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 7:27 am, "howa" <howac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
>
> > Seems SEQUENCE is very handy and natural. Why don't others implement
> > SEQUENCE?
>
> > /Hans
>
> I can't agree SEQUENCE is more handy than AUTO_INCREMENT as you need
> to do the same thing by two statements.

Your opinion. Can't disagree with opinion. Leads to troll-talk.

>
> Also, in real world, use of AUTO_INCREMENT as primary key (e.g. id) is
> in fact, quite intuitive.

Actually, quite counter-intuitive. Your assumption is that there must
be an increment. Primary key is NOT incremental, just unique.
Increment is a specific busy-ness rule that may have nada to do with
primary key.

Putting too much into the definition can make thing go stoopid.

/Hans