As you know, the reason why this feature was implemented was to improve performance by reducing the contention on the arschema table. This feature mimics the Oracle sequence, which has the same issue: there can be gaps in the sequence because of instance crashes or rollback in transactions. I guess the general advise is not to rely on the Request ID field (Field ID 1) anymore for anything, as much as possible: ideally relationships would be done on the Instance ID field (field 179) instead, or some other criteria. Actually the ITSM apps aim that goal, so therefore we should too.... -Guillaume
________________________________ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Frex Popo Sent: Tue 02/10/09 10:41 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE ** Dear all, I have and ITSM7.0/ARS7.1 instalation, I have set the NEXT-BLOCK-ID-SIZE to 10. I would like to know how do you decide the size, is it based on the number of server threads, the number of DB processes, number of users etc etc? I am aware that if you restart the server you loose the sequencing, however are there any other implications if you set this too high? The reason I am also asking is, I noticed that some requests which were created say @ 10AM (for the sake of argument!) have a sequence with a number grater than others which were created @ 11AM. Many thanks in advance frex ________________________________ Ne pleurez pas si votre Webmail ferme. Récupérez votre historique sur Yahoo! Mail <http://fr.rd.yahoo.com/mail_fr/taglines/caramail/*http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/mail/transfert_mails.html> __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"