RE: autoincremental field ?? Bug

> -----Original Message----- > From: Obnoxio The Clown [mailto:obnoxio@hotmail.com] > >I have tried this so many times that now I'm at about 700. > > Why are you trying to do this? Rule number 17 is that your > keys should have no meaning. So why do you care if > there's a gap? Rule No 16. The client is always right. More seriously. There are often situations when your keys do have meaning for a particular business rule. Also legacy applications don't always play by the rules :-) I have also tries to create some generic testing for this. The testing seems to give different results on different versions of informix. For example CREATE TABLE nona ( test_col SERIAL ); INSERT INTO nona VALUES (0); INSERT INTO nona VALUES (0); INSERT INTO nona VALUES (0); INSERT INTO nona VALUES (0); INSERT INTO nona VALUES (0);SELECT MAX ( test_col ) FROM nona; -- should return 5 Then DELETE FROM nona WHERE 1 = 1; ALTER TABLE nona MODIFY test_col INTEGER;-- a thought process my Mark Stock ALTER TABLE nona MODIFY test_col SERIAL (2); INSERT INTO nona VALUES (0);SELECT MAX ( test_col ) FROM nona; On my version ( 7.30UC3 ) The last select returns 6 ! Paul Watson has tried on 7.24.UC8 and gets a value of 2! These inconsistencies make me believe that there is a bug. Jo ___________________________________________________________________________ This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Sema Group. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the Sema Group Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 121 627 5600. ___________________________________________________________________________