Re: Natural keys vs Aritficial Keys

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 02:39:50 GMT
Message-ID: <WNKPl.28395$PH1.4149_at_edtnps82>


Tony Toews [MVP] wrote:
> paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:
>

>>> (Occasionally they would have to rebuild a particular item.   The gravel pad at one
>>> client where these are stored is about a mile square.   Well, if the plant has a
>>> large expansion, and there's a lot of snow that winter, you can't find the
>>> assemblies.      Until the expansion is finished a year or two later and you're
>>> looking at the excess assemblies which are laying on the gravel..   And the folks at
>>> the plant getting paid $25 and $30 an hour love being told to go through all the
>>> items on this gravel pad looking for particular assemblies.  A great way to spend a
>>> shift rather than hauling stuff around or whatever.)
>> i also meant to add that the above shows the beginnings of a case study 
>> that might be useful in general, although it's not clear whether getting 
>> rid of the union is a system requirement.

>
> Now this was about eight years ago so we didn't have the hand held devices with
> convenient GPSs that are presumably available these days. It was quite a bit more of
> a pain to assemble such a ruggedized device. I did a bit of research, not a lot,
> and couldn't find anything other than external wire attached GPSs.
>
> Nevertheless it was my suggestion to give the guys a device which had a hand held
> computer of some sort with a bar code reader and a GPS. Every month or two send them
> out scanning each bar code they could find. If they scanned the same item with the
> bar code at each end well who cares. Then come back to the office, download the data
> and now you know exactly where your inventory is.
>
> Tony

Now you are diverging, imho, magic wands and such 'devices' being the system equivalent of what Edward de Bono might have called porridge words. That stuff can never outlive a useful concept, call it the techno trap if you want., . Received on Sun May 17 2009 - 04:39:50 CEST

Original text of this message