Ewok wrote: > I guess thatē“ one way of looking at it... I think creating the need to > combine them is more work than its worth or would ever need to be. Valid or > invalid, I still recommend something a little more easier to differentiate > records with such as a single unique key per record.
I think adding an extra field solely for a unique identifier only complicates the matter. Especially in many to many relations this is by far the easiest way to link tables. Though I suppose that if you really needed to you could always define a composite type. > After all, what hes having trouble with would be "less trouble than it' > already not" if they existed here. In English please. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:207358 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
