Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.databases.oracle    |    Overblown overpriced overengineered SHIT    |    2,288 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 816 of 2,288    |
|    Michael Hill to Mark D Powell    |
|    Re: re-numbering pimary-key    |
|    16 Dec 03 11:03:03    |
      From: hillmw@ram.lmtas.lmco.com              > I just tried to change some in test and of course it wouldn't let me change       any because of the       > constraints. I was afraid of that.              >       > Mike, I have actually gone through and migrated all related rows in an       > application where the parent table key was a sequence value.       > Logically it was not that hard to write the pl/sql code I used to       > perform the processing but it was a fairly expensive process from the       > point of view of the work that has to be done by Oracle, indexes       > updated, redo generated, etc....       >       > Here is an alternate that we are about to do today. Due to a sequence       > that is about to recycle (due to size limitation of external system we       > feed) and where we must first remove existing data to allow the reuse       > of the sequence value, but where the customer does not want any data       > removed until after year-end since this will distort their       > year-to-date information, is to substitute our own home-grown       > sequence.       >              So all you are doing is re-using the holes that exist. Do you have an example       of that code. This may be a       better idea.              >       > What I did was write a function as an anonymous transaction that reads       > one row from an IOT that was populated with the missing (skipped)       > sequence numbers using select for update, delete, commit, return the       > selected value.       >       > It seems to test just fine. As long as you are on Oracle version 8i       > and the function is not called as part of a distributed transaction       > this may be a simplier route to take. With version 9 the distributed       > transaction restriction should be removed. We just substituted our       > function name for the sequence, recompiled the four programs that call       > the sequence, and tested.       >       > HTH -- Mark D Powell --              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca