Re: Auto increment
From: Costin Cozianu <c_cozianu_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 22:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <b9kodd$ka6pj$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de>
>
>
> Do these same problems apply to *any* system-supplied
> key? It seems that your "The entire, whole, completed
> set is presented to Foobar all at once, not a row at a time"
> objection would apply to any such.
>
> But it seems pretty common that I just want to have a key,
> and I don't care what the specific values are (as long as
> they are unique,) and I'd like to have the system supply
> it for me. Is there no clean way to do this?
>
>
> Marshall
>
>
>
>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 22:57:10 -0700
Message-ID: <b9kodd$ka6pj$1_at_ID-152540.news.dfncis.de>
Marshall Spight wrote:
> "--CELKO--" <71062.1056_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message news:c0d87ec0.0305101930.65eb8cca@posting.google.com...
>
>>[a bunch of good points.] >> >>There are better ways of creating identifiers.
>
>
> Do these same problems apply to *any* system-supplied
> key? It seems that your "The entire, whole, completed
> set is presented to Foobar all at once, not a row at a time"
> objection would apply to any such.
>
> But it seems pretty common that I just want to have a key,
> and I don't care what the specific values are (as long as
> they are unique,) and I'd like to have the system supply
> it for me. Is there no clean way to do this?
>
>
> Marshall
>
>
>
>
So you'll always have a natural key.
Costin Received on Sun May 11 2003 - 07:57:10 CEST