Kevin Berry wrote:

>Sounds like a similar approach to the one I would
>take, except that I'd be using Delphi instead. :-)
>However, I worry about the performance and the
>additional space used by the longer fields. 16 bytes
>vs 36 bytes (or 32 bytes at the smallest) is quite a
>difference for key fields that must be indexed.
>
>
>

Kevin,

For sure any byte saved on a key will be good, but if you use reversed
GUID the compression on the index will take care to keep it small. So,
maybe it won't be so bad to have a 32 char PK :-)

see you !

--

Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda.
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005