On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 16:20 -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> It's not a LOT better, but I think it's at least *somewhat* better.
> And perhaps someone can point out a way of doing better still, perhaps
> to not bother generating some of the tuples altogether.
> 
> Thoughts?

Is there a reason that there has to be an entry in sl_seqlog if the
sequence doesn't change?  If not, then you should be able to insert on
change, and do nothing for case where it doesn't change.
-- 
Brad Nicholson  416-673-4106
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.