31 Aug
2009
31 Aug
'09
2:50 p.m.
On 31-08-2009 09:28:58 -0400, Matthew Jones wrote:
I still have to be able to do that while continuously loading batches, and moving between tables like that will require me to lock out both tables while it is going on. Instead with my solution I only have to lock out the sequence for as long as it takes to generate the number and increment it, I just wish I didn't have to pay the cost at all at the client layer.
do you know how many records come in advance? then you can just update the sequence before you load, and hence avoid the possibility of sequence numbers being returned that would be assigned to your batch.