|
Chris, You'd never get duplicates in your test case because each machine has a different NIC, which would guarentee a unique NODE segment within the UUID. Regards, John Taylor Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Bipes" <chris.bipes@cross-check.com> To: <RPG400-L@midrange.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 09:44 Subject: RE: Timestamps > We have 3 AS400s, (720/170/400), and I ran a test, Create 1,000,000 records > with two fields, UUID, (Universal Unique ID - 16A), and Time Stamp. When > combining the three files, I had duplicate time stamps but not duplicate > UUIDs. Can an 24 way 850, with a zillion disk arms, write more than one > record a nano second? Perhaps the next generation will. > > Christopher K. Bipes mailto:ChrisB@Cross-Check.com > Sr. Programmer/Analyst mailto:Chris_Bipes@Yahoo.com > CrossCheck, Inc. http://www.cross-check.com > 6119 State Farm Drive Phone: 707 586-0551 x 1102 > Rohnert Park CA 94928 Fax: 707 586-1884 > > If consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, only geniuses work here. > Karen Herbelin - Readers Digest 3/2000 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric N. Wilson [mailto:doulos1@home.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 7:33 AM > To: RPG400-L > Subject: Re: Timestamps > > > Hello, > > Using the API is a bit of overkill in most situations. Doing the Time > opcode into a timestamp field gives you everything but the last 3 > digits of the timestamp... Which I believe to be the same result as > the API. > > Using a logical file with the time stamp omitted is the only way I > know of to actually get the last three digits of the timestamp... > > Even if a person were able to get the last three digits of a timestamp > there will come a day when more than one record will be able to be > added in that interval (Trust me it will especially if you rely on a > timestamp to be your unique key). There has been discussion on the > validity of using timestamps and methods of retrieving them recently > and should be accessible via the search facilities. > > A approach that may be more viable is to use a UUID as has also been > discussed recently. The value is not pretty to the eyes, but unique > keys should not have any embedded meaning (other than to uniquely > identify a record) in my opinion. > > Wednesday, November 22, 2000, 12:43:38 AM, you wrote: > +--- > | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List! > | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com. > | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com. > | To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. > | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com > +--- > +--- | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.