Re: incrementing updates and locks

Dumb i am.. nextval() already issued the next one to the sequence.
I probably dont need a separate table.

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Aras Angelo <araskoktas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Daniel, Craig
>
> The gaps are not really expected. It is set once only.
> Its about printing packing slips for ecommerce orders. We have the ORDER ID
> sequence, but so many different stations are accessing these orders, if my
> station print the next 100 orders from the que, id like to give them values
> starting from MAX(print_number_sequence so far) AND +1, +2, +3, .... +100.
>
> I hope this clears it better. I think a sequence can work. My concern was
> performance, as in the actual programming LOOP, querying the max field,
> assigning the row number, reissuing the max field. A sequence i guess, would
> perform better than a regular table index?
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Craig James <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/10 3:54 PM, Aras Angelo wrote:
>>
>>> Hello All
>>>
>>> I have a column in my table which is incrementally updated.
>>>
>>
>> Try to give us more details...
>>
>> Does the column need have contiguous values or are "gaps" ok? That is,
>> does it have to be 1,2,3,4,...,N-1,N or is it ok to have something like
>> 1,3,4,7,...,M (where M>N) for N rows?
>>
>> Is the value updated every time the row is changed, or is it set once
>> only?
>>
>> If gaps are OK, then a sequence is a simple answer.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
>>
>
>