List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Chris Boget Date:October 28 2002 8:07pm
Subject:Re: InnoDB and auto_increment fields
View as plain text  
> > stored?  Why isn't this done automatically as it is for [ISAM] tables?
> As for the "why", I'm not a MySQL developer, but I believe the reason
> goes something like this: When ISAM tables were implemented, they did
> it the "wrong" way.  When other table types came along, they fixed
> this "bug" and do it the "right" way.

Ahh, ok.
Thanks for the info.
 
> You seem to disagree about which is better, but I believe the above is
> the explanation for the switch in behavior.

I really have no opinion as to which is "better".  Certainly, restarting on an
empty table automatically is easier.  But for reasons that you point out, 
depending on your application, it could lead to unforseen problems.

Chris


Thread
ConnectionArthur25 Oct
  • Re: ConnectionJocelyn Fournier25 Oct
  • phpmyadminMitchell Wright25 Oct
    • RE: phpmyadminEd Carp25 Oct
      • Re: phpmyadmin (OT)Thomas Seifert25 Oct
        • Re: phpmyadmin (OT)Mitchell Wright25 Oct
      • RE: phpmyadminJohn Chang25 Oct
        • RE: phpmyadminJeroen Geusebroek26 Oct
        • RE: phpmyadminEd Carp26 Oct
    • Re: phpmyadmin (OT)Mark Stringham25 Oct
    • InnoDB and auto_increment fieldsChris Boget25 Oct
      • Re: InnoDB and auto_increment fieldsDyego Souza do Carmo25 Oct
      • Re: InnoDB and auto_increment fieldsPaul DuBois26 Oct
    • Re: InnoDB and auto_increment fieldsChris Boget25 Oct
      • Re: InnoDB and auto_increment fieldsPete Harlan28 Oct
    • Re: InnoDB and auto_increment fieldsChris Boget28 Oct
Re: phpmyadminJan Steinman27 Oct