Kirk Brooks writes: >I am surprised this thread has drawn so much discussion. It's good >discussion but scanning back over it a key point is that all of these >contortions and workarounds to preserve a number sequence are based on the >single design decision to use an invoice (in this case) number as a key >field. I'm not criticizing of course - I used to do this as well and still >have a few cases where that sort of design exists though nothing involving >number series where gaps are an issue. Not to mention I've been doing 4D >long enough to recall the first discussions about data normalization the >community had and the, erm, hesitant embrace of it by many.
Thank you Kirk for finally mentioning this. The use of 'magic numbers' is tempting, but ultimately leads to lots of work to support. Keys should have no meaning. That said, the need to manage sequence numbers without gaps is legitimate and an interesting subject (as this thread has illustrated). Just don't use them as relational keys, or if you do, make sure you do it with your eyes open. Tom Benedict Optum This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately. ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: https://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:[email protected] **********************************************************************
