Understood Matt, and agreed. But in most random number generation routines, you say what range you want the resulting number to fall into - upper and lower limits. (i.e. RandRange(1, 1000000) ). So, at this point you'd have to specify a number that matches the max size of your Primary Key datatype to get the absolute maximum size number.
Also, I think generating random numbers within a range tend to favor numbers towards the center of the range. I know a lot of work has been put into Random number routines to avoid this, but it still happens. My thoughts, even if they are rather off topic... <grins> Shawn Grover -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:35 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Hacking" a shared SQL server The only upper limit for any random number is how many bits long it is. Of course this limit is the same for a sequential primary key. -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Grover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:32 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Hacking" a shared SQL server > > for tables with small records, this might be ok. But think about a > transaction table - potentially hundreds of transactions a day. For the > first bit, this might work well. But eventually your system will bog down > while it tries to find an un-used ID. > > Also, to generate your random number, you have to predetermine the upper > limit (numbers from 1 to 1,000,000 say, or more even). This will limit > your > system to X number of records (whatever your upper limit is). > > So, in larger applications random numbers are probably not the best > solution. > > Shawn Grover > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:23 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Hacking" a shared SQL server > > > Coming out of left field here as I haven't read everything but what about > in > your code getting a random number, checking to make sure its not in your > table then insert it. Just run a loop. > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/06/02 03:52PM >>> > > Actually there is nothing wrong with using an integer for a primary key. > > The trick is to make sure they aren't in sequence, so that people can't > > guess other keys. > > Matt, > Do you have any methods for creating non-sequenced integer primary > keys > that aren't a performance hit? I can think of two: > > -- Have a single table with a bunch of integers in random order. > > This seems a bit cumbersome to me, but definitely possible. > > > -- Have your primary keys based off an algorithm. > > Technically, still a sequence, but definitely not as easy to figure out. > You'd have to make sure this was implemented site-wide. Perhaps a stored > procedure to pull the next based on the previous one. > > > > Ben Johnson > Hostworks, Inc. > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
