I'm just saying what I do..
there's no rule AFAIK
The fact that the meaning has "no meaning" is why I use it. I often need to
synchronise with other databases for assets and there is no way I can use
their primary key. I need my own and unfortunately I need their's too but I
can't (don't) trust it as primary. That's one big reason.

Next, I have often struck a situation where a key with "meaning" can be
comandeered by the user and they have though up ways to require making
duplicates of the their "key" - I don't argue under my scheme, they can own
and do what they want with their data. The key is mine... the data is
their's. They don't ever know about my key - I don't ever (much) care about
their data.

Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Roman [mailto:aroman@...]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 November 2002 9:23
To: ib-support@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ib-support] General questions

> I agree to the second. I always use a non data related primary key

Why? The "meaning" has no meaning for the database or application. It has
meaning only for the human. If the programmer is sure that the field he
uses
is unique, he can use data with "meaning" as primary key, without any
problems at all.

Adrian Roman


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ib-support-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]