[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: revision numbering (was: Re: Multiple projects in one repository!)

From: Glenn A. Thompson <gthompson_at_cdr.net>
Date: 2002-05-03 21:34:02 CEST


"Kirby C. Bohling" wrote:

> Glenn,
> If you have the proper amount of memory allocated, on the cache sequences
> you shouldn't lose any (you might have to pin them in memory). They
> only get lost if the sequence is forced out of the shared_pool (I think
> that is the name of it), or if the database crashes. We use to have
> problems with lots of skipping that I thought was a cache problem.
> Oracle Support beat me with a clue-by-4 when I insisted it was because
> they are cached.

Really? By memory do you mean bumping up some SGA related Parameter?

> You should only lose them if you ask for one and then either don't use
> it, or the transaction gets rolled back.

Yeah, I knew that.

> If you're really insistant on getting them in sequence it is in fact
> possible, but you completely serialize writting to the database, which
> is generally hell on performance.

Yeah! I assume you are speaking of the NOCACHE option.

I don't think insisting on them being in order is a good thing to do. Once you start
using a DB It seems that DBAs have a way of tuning something you never new existed.

> PostGres has similar problems, but MySQL for instance the auto-numbers
> in there I believe are always in order and all of them get used, (at
> least in the 3.X series), with the Table Level locking they do serialize
> the writes as a "feature".

Thanks for the input,


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 3 21:30:14 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.