"Dawid Kuroczko" <qnex42@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I did not test the code right now, but I've written something similar to > it some time ago, and it worked fine. Remember to vacuum gapless_seq > table frequently and don't expect stellar performance from it. Interesting approach... And I don't expect too much performance for it. The restriction of the gapless sequence makes it expected that there's some minor delay somewhere. It would be bad on "common" sequences, but not on gapless. :-) Thanks for the code... It is a bit different from mine -- better, in fact... ;-) -- and I could give it a try. -- Jorge Godoy <jgodoy@xxxxxxxxx>
