Rather than decrementing the position of every row above the deleted one, you should just give the highest one the position of the deleted one. So if you have rows 1, 2, 3, 4 and you delete 2, you have 1, 3, 2. That way you only have to make one update.
You are correct. There never is golden solution for each case. All tables have theirs specifics and where on solutions is great it is a failure in another one.
I dont think that would work, ie. we got 1,2,3,4. We delete 2 1,3,4 are left and we are missing 2. Flowing ur advice i can update last value (4) and get 1,3,2.
Now, I delete 1. 3,2 are left and updating last value wont give us a correct sequence
Comment
Rather than decrementing the position of every row above the deleted one, you should just give the highest one the position of the deleted one. So if you have rows 1, 2, 3, 4 and you delete 2, you have 1, 3, 2. That way you only have to make one update.
Parent comment
You are correct. There never is golden solution for each case. All tables have theirs specifics and where on solutions is great it is a failure in another one.
Replies
I dont think that would work, ie. we got 1,2,3,4. We delete 2
1,3,4 are left and we are missing 2. Flowing ur advice i can update last value (4) and get 1,3,2.
Now, I delete 1. 3,2 are left and updating last value wont give us a correct sequence
No, you would replace the 3 with 1. That is the highest position value in the sequence 1,3,2. Not the *last* value in position, the *highest*.