Horton

Thread

  1. OID decreasing?

    Louis-David Mitterrand <cunctator@apartia.ch> — 2000-08-17T10:33:57Z

    Hello,

In this table one can see that OID 178502 was created after OID 178593.
Is this normal behaviour? I thought that OID sequences kept going up.

  oid   |   login   | price |        created         
--------+-----------+-------+------------------------
 178383 | vindex    | 32500 | 2000-08-14 16:21:04+02
 178384 | cunctator | 33000 | 2000-08-17 09:03:17+02
 178432 | papy      | 33500 | 2000-08-17 09:15:15+02
 178465 | vindex    | 34000 | 2000-08-17 09:15:59+02
 178496 | papy      | 34500 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
 178497 | vindex    | 35000 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
 178499 | papy      | 65000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
 178501 | vindex    | 75000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
 178502 | papy      | 77500 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
 178528 | papy      | 35500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
 178529 | vindex    | 36000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
 178561 | papy      | 55000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
 178562 | vindex    | 57500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
 178592 | papy      | 60000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02
 178593 | vindex    | 62500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02


-- 
Louis-David Mitterrand - ldm@apartia.org - http://www.apartia.org

Linux: The Ultimate NT Service Pack

  2. Re: OID decreasing?

    Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> — 2000-08-17T23:23:43Z

    I'm totally guessing here, but sometimes databases use a scheme where
each backend process grabs a chunk of oids for its own use to avoid
process contention on this single resource. Were they created with
multiple connections?

Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In this table one can see that OID 178502 was created after OID 178593.
> Is this normal behaviour? I thought that OID sequences kept going up.
> 
>   oid   |   login   | price |        created
> --------+-----------+-------+------------------------
>  178383 | vindex    | 32500 | 2000-08-14 16:21:04+02
>  178384 | cunctator | 33000 | 2000-08-17 09:03:17+02
>  178432 | papy      | 33500 | 2000-08-17 09:15:15+02
>  178465 | vindex    | 34000 | 2000-08-17 09:15:59+02
>  178496 | papy      | 34500 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
>  178497 | vindex    | 35000 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
>  178499 | papy      | 65000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
>  178501 | vindex    | 75000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
>  178502 | papy      | 77500 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
>  178528 | papy      | 35500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
>  178529 | vindex    | 36000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
>  178561 | papy      | 55000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
>  178562 | vindex    | 57500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
>  178592 | papy      | 60000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02
>  178593 | vindex    | 62500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02
> 
> --
> Louis-David Mitterrand - ldm@apartia.org - http://www.apartia.org
> 
> Linux: The Ultimate NT Service Pack

  3. RE: OID decreasing?

    Andrew Snow <als@fl.net.au> — 2000-08-18T00:08:51Z

    > Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > In this table one can see that OID 178502 was created after OID 178593.
> > Is this normal behaviour? I thought that OID sequences kept going up.
> > 
> >   oid   |   login   | price |        created
> > --------+-----------+-------+------------------------
> >  178383 | vindex    | 32500 | 2000-08-14 16:21:04+02
> >  178384 | cunctator | 33000 | 2000-08-17 09:03:17+02
> >  178432 | papy      | 33500 | 2000-08-17 09:15:15+02
> >  178465 | vindex    | 34000 | 2000-08-17 09:15:59+02
> >  178496 | papy      | 34500 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
> >  178497 | vindex    | 35000 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
> >  178499 | papy      | 65000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
> >  178501 | vindex    | 75000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
> >  178502 | papy      | 77500 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
> >  178528 | papy      | 35500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
> >  178529 | vindex    | 36000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
> >  178561 | papy      | 55000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
> >  178562 | vindex    | 57500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
> >  178592 | papy      | 60000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02
> >  178593 | vindex    | 62500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02

Perhaps the system clock was adjusted during the inserts ?


Andrew.

  4. Re: OID decreasing?

    Louis-David Mitterrand <cunctator@apartia.ch> — 2000-08-18T06:51:35Z

    On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 09:23:43AM +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> 
> I'm totally guessing here, but sometimes databases use a scheme where
> each backend process grabs a chunk of oids for its own use to avoid
> process contention on this single resource. Were they created with
> multiple connections?

Right on! There were indeed created through Apache::DBI. Thanks for your
input.

> Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > In this table one can see that OID 178502 was created after OID 178593.
> > Is this normal behaviour? I thought that OID sequences kept going up.
-- 
Louis-David Mitterrand - ldm@apartia.org - http://www.apartia.org

> Any suggestions for setting up WinCVS client + (server) on NT4?
Run away screaming in terror.
										--Toby.