On 04/28/2016 08:48 PM, Israel Brewster wrote: >> >> On Apr 28, 2016, at 10:39 AM, Vik Fearing <v...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: >> >> What would be the point of this? Why not just one sequence for all >> departments? > > continuity and appearance, not to mention simple logical progression. In this > case, the sequence is being used to generate a PO number. Company style > indicates that a PO number is a department code followed by a unique number. > With one sequence for all departments, you could (will) end up with > discontinuous PO numbers in any given department. It would be nice if, after > issuing PO number 15-1, the next PO in department 15 was 2, if for no other > reason than the accounting department could easily see that they aren't > missing any. With one sequence, there will quite likely not be a PO number 2 > for any given department, so that department has no easy way to keep track of > their PO's based on PO number.
You're not guaranteed that even with individual sequences. What' you're looking for is a gapless sequence, which is best simulated with a table. In your case, I'd just add a column to your existing departments table holding the next number to use. It'll kill your performance, but if aesthetics are that important to you... -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
