Re: Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

From: Sylvain Lafontaine <"Sylvain>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:37:18 -0500
Message-ID: <OO6ENcrYIHA.4712_at_TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>

I was making a direct reference to the following quote:

> In a recent thread on this subject, Tony Toews Access MVP qualified
> that he liked using incremental autonumbers (rather than random)
> because they where easier to type (WHERE ID = -2001736589 may
> encourage typos) and easier to drop into conversation ("Hello Tony?
> I'm seeing a problem with the record where the ID is -2001736589...").

Of course, theoritically and in a world with unlimited budget, you're right in the sense that a surrogate key should never cross the boundaries of a database (the interface beeing located inside in these boundaries) but my clients don't have infinite budget and my brain isn't infinite either.

Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)

"Jamie Collins" <> wrote in message

> On Jan 28, 5:30 pm, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the
> blanks, no >
>> if you live in a perfect world, one with infinite budget and infinite
>> time to do any project, then I understand your concerns.
>> if I
>> were to live in a perfect world, I wouldn't have to work to earn a living
>> in
>> the first place.
> Are you really aiming your comments at me? I've already said in this
> thread that I frequently encounter 'autonumber' problems so how could
> that be a "perfect world" for me?
>> I understand your concerns.
> Oh yeah? Do you understand that my concern is not that Access MVPs in
> typically use autonumbers on most, if not all, their tables? I'm sure
> they know enough to make their own decisions. Rather, my concern is
> that Tony Toews Access MVPs would promote such practise without giving
> good reasons or presenting a balanced view, and that readers will he
> says because of the letters M, V and P and in lieu of understanding
> the issues themselves. Once again, I should say I have no problem with
> Tony Toews Access MVP generally, I think he was just having an off day
> or perhaps wanted to provoke a response by being flippant. And I've no
> problem with anyone being provocative round here (I'd be a hypocrite
> if I said I did <g>).
>> you cannot codifying everything for a variety of
>> reasons: budget, system already in place and working well, impossibility
>> to
>> anticipate everything, more art than a science, etc., etc.
> Hm, "codifying" is not a word I'm overly familiar with, I had to look
> it up: "the process of collecting and restating the law of a
> jurisdiction in certain areas, usually by subject... To arrange or
> systematize". If that's an accusation then Tony is just as guilty as I
> with his, "It's one of my rules" comment.
>> Why would they pay to
>> change something that had worked well for them for many years and at the
>> risk of finding themselves at the front of something new that might not
>> work
>> as well as the one system?
> Did I suggest they should? Re-engineering code for the sake of it is
> not my philosophy and I offer the following recent thread in evidence:
> Pete says> > my real question/agenda is: Should I go through my app
>> > and change everything that's Double to Decimal?
> Jamie says> I don't think you should reengineer your code in the way
> you suggest.
>> That would be committing the same mistake as those who add an
>> autonumber primary key to every table i.e. done out of habit, knee
>> jerk reaction rather than engaging the brain. Fix bugs instead ;-)
> Back to the current thread:
>> this system is working well at the moment and has
>> done so for many years; it would probably make your teeth gnashing but
>> it's
>> not on their radar at this moment to change it.
> I'm sure that if I looked at code I wrote last year that is working
> well at the moment I'd want to do it differently given the opportunity
> but I wouldn't seek to create such an opportunity; I'd rather put it
> down to experience and tackle something new.
>> In this message, you can replace the name of Celko with the name of a lot
>> of
>> persons around here but not with mine.
> So are you aiming you comments at me directly, merely implicating me
> or have you just chosen to attach your 'rant' to my post at random?
> Jamie.
> --
Received on Tue Jan 29 2008 - 21:37:18 CET

Original text of this message