On 10/6/05, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm inclined to think that this is a bad idea by itself because your > id_allocator table ends up with a large number of records in it, one > per increment, which take up space but don't serve a useful purpose. > Whereas, an updating approach will not take up any more space than > necessary. -- Darren Duncan >
Depends on what you're optimizing for. Disk space is cheaper than dirt.
