From: mcstockX@Xenquery   
      
   "Andrew Baker"  wrote in message   
   news:c19b84e5.0407290256.1e869438@posting.google.com...   
   | After thinking through swapping to using a sequence number I came up   
   | with a couple of potential gotchas:   
   |   
   | 1. When we fail over to our DR (disaster recovery) boxes the numbers   
   | must continue their sequence. Would a sequence number work under this   
   | circumstance?   
      
   yes, the sequence definition should remained synchronized (see #2)   
      
   |   
   | 2. When the box reboots/crashes does it continue the sequence number   
   | from where it was before the restart?   
      
   lookup the information on SEQUENCE in the oracle docs, it explains how each   
   sequence has a cache that is loaded into memory as needed, and discarded at   
   shutdown if not used   
      
   |   
   | 3. Can you manually tune the sequence numbers to increment by   
   | specified amounts?   
   |   
      
   yes -- lookup CREATE SEQUENCE in the Oracle SQL manual   
      
   | 4. Is a sequence number system wide? ie. I can it be table specific   
   | like IDENTITY columns in SQL server?   
      
   just like tables, it depends on privileges that you grant -- lookup   
   information about object   
   security in the manuals, including GRANT in the Oracle SQL manual   
      
   5) http://tahiti.oracle.com for manuals   
      
   6) your earlier post says 'it flies', referring to performance of   
   table-based SA-ID management. maybe with one user, but if you simulate a   
   load you will begin to see degradation due to serialization   
      
      
   ++ mcs   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)