On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, damorgan_at_psoug.org wrote:
> Galen Boyer wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, damorgan_at_psoug.org wrote:
>>> howa wrote:
>>>> Seems AUTO_INCREMENT is very handy and natural, anyone agree?
>> Has its merit. I like the way sequences are not tied to a
>> single
>> table. Gives one much more flexibility.
>>
>>> No. Autoincrement is a brain-damaged way of creating surrogate
>>> keys.
>> And what, may I ask, is the non-brain damaged way of using
>> sequences?
>
> I wasn't referring to sequences. I was referring to autoincrementing
> identity columns.
I was asking how sequences aren't considered brain-damaged. They are
used to create a surrogate key just like autoincrementing columns, and
the autoincrementing surrogate key is what I'm assuming what you mean by
brain damaged.
--
Galen Boyer
Received on Thu Apr 19 2007 - 23:03:02 CDT
