Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 790445
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T21:40:58+00:00 2026-05-14T21:40:58+00:00

I would like to have multiple users that share the same tables in the

  • 0

I would like to have multiple users that share the same tables in the database, but have one auto_increment value per user. I will use an embedded database, JavaDB and as what I know it doesn’t support this functionality. How can I implement it?

Should I implement a trigger on inserts that lookup the users last inserted row, and then add one, or are there any better alternative? Or is it better to implement this in the application code?

Or is this just a bad idea? I think this is easier to maintain than creating new tables for every user.

Example:

table
+----+-------------+---------+------+
| ID | ID_PER_USER | USER_ID | DATA |
+----+-------------+---------+------+
|  1 |           1 |       2 | 3454 |
|  2 |           2 |       2 | 6567 |
|  3 |           1 |       3 | 6788 |
|  4 |           3 |       2 | 1133 |
|  5 |           4 |       2 | 4534 |
|  6 |           2 |       3 | 4366 |
|  7 |           3 |       3 | 7887 |
+----+-------------+---------+------+

SELECT * FROM table WHERE USER_ID = 3
+----+-------------+---------+------+
| ID | ID_PER_USER | USER_ID | DATA |
+----+-------------+---------+------+
|  3 |           1 |       3 | 6788 |
|  6 |           2 |       3 | 4366 |
|  7 |           3 |       3 | 7887 |
+----+-------------+---------+------+

SELECT * FROM table WHERE USER_ID = 2
+----+-------------+---------+------+
| ID | ID_PER_USER | USER_ID | DATA |
+----+-------------+---------+------+
|  1 |           1 |       2 | 3454 |
|  2 |           2 |       2 | 6567 |
|  4 |           3 |       2 | 1133 |
|  5 |           4 |       2 | 4534 |
+----+-------------+---------+------+
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T21:40:59+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 9:40 pm

    If you can guarantee that there will only be one session per user, then it would be pretty safe to do. If a user can have more than one session then whether you do this in a trigger or in the application code you will need to take an exclusive table lock to make sure that the session you are in is the only one to get that next number.

    But don’t go for a table per user. That would make your sql really ugly and prevent any sort of sql plan sharing.

    You may be better served by using a timestamp instead of a serial number.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.