This email is to be read subject to the disclaimer below.
Taco,
The one table approach you describe is something we use too, so those
stored procedures sound interesting to me. Could you please send me a copy
of them?
Cheers
Vik
---------------------
Viktor Radnai
Web Developer, National E-Commerce, Ernst & Young
Direct: +61 2 9248 4361
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: To: "CFAussie Mailing
List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:
mon.com.au Subject: [cfaussie] Re:
UUID vs Integer with Primary keys..
22/01/2003 10:06 AM
Please respond to "CFAussie
Mailing List"
Scott,
I'm not sure why you would want to spread your data across 3 tables.
I always use the following db structure for a Tree Hierachy.
pkWhateverID [integer pk identity] / fkParentID [integer] / textColumn
[varchar(X)]
I use 3 very small and simple stored procedures that create a temp table
and create the sorted output I need to display. I'd be happy to send you a
copy of these 3 stored procedures if it would be of any help to you?
The disadvantage I see is that with the structure you got now you can not
go down the Tree hierachy further than the sibling. With the above
structure you can go down the hierachy as far as you need to.
I would say the negative effect of using UUID would be:
- It takes longer to create than an incrementing integer
- I believe there is still a 0.01 % change that you will run into a
duplicate
- It takes more space to store a UUID instead of an integer
Hey, maybe I am way of here and don't exactly understand what needs to be
done... In anycase if I am on the right track let me know if I can help..
Taco Fleur
PS. sounds like you got the perfect job being able to work on thsoe sites.
> Sorry to ask probably a question thats had a debate before, but.. i will
so shutup and read. :D
>
> Whats the negative sideeffects of using UUID instead of Integer
(autonumber) for primary keys in a table. The reason i bring this up, as I
always use a parent-child-sibling-infant type relationship amongst various
tables, one example off the top of my head was a awhile back where i had 3
tables that basically provide:
>
> - Category (parent table)
> - Category (parent table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ------- file versions (sibling table)
> ------- file versions (sibling table)
> ------- file versions (sibling table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ------- file versions (sibling table)
> ------- file versions (sibling table)
> ------- file versions (sibling table)
> - Category (parent table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ---- File (child table)
> ---- File (child table)
> - Category (parent table)
>
> This situation called for the ability to not only associate 3 different
tables into a heircahy based dataset, but it also called for i think 3-4
other tables that provided other pieces of information per level, and in
doing this i was forced to use a big meaty looking SQL SP, that made use of
both UNIONs and Views, which worked great.
>
> I did find that if i simply relied on the Autonumber system, the heirachy
would be out of sync, as in the joining field for the child had the same
value as the parent pk, but having said that, the child pks also had the
same value and so a child brach would mistakenly associate its children
under another child?
>
> ie:
> parentID = 2
>
> childID = 1
> childParent = 2
>
> childID = 2
> childParent = 2
>
> childID = 3
> childParent = 2
>
> even though the childParent = 2, i did find that child referred to
childID = 2 as its parent?
>
> I did manage to find away around this so i didn't have to basically
redesign the entire db, but i'm about to embark on a bigger project
(probably the biggest i have undertaken yet) and i so want this to be a
finely tuned effecient running machine, and having remembering this
scenario, i felt a bit nervous with simply utilising an "autonumbered"
system or even a seperate table which has a running pool of numbers that
you take from.
>
> Atleast with UUID i know that no matter what no other rowID through-out
the entire database will have the same value?
>
> Your thoughts would be appreciated.
>
> Scott Barnes
> eCommerce
> Tourism Queensland / Sunlover Holidays
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> www.queenslandtravel.com
> www.sunloverholidays.com
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MX Downunder AsiaPac DevCon - http://mxdu.com/
--------------------
NOTICE - This communication contains information which is confidential and
the copyright of Ernst & Young or a third party.
If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete
and destroy all copies and telephone Ernst & Young on 1800 655 717
immediately. If you are the intended recipient of this communication you
should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without the
authority of Ernst & Young.
Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Ernst & Young.
Except as required at law, Ernst & Young does not represent, warrant and/or
guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor
that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or
interference.
Liability limited by the Accountants Scheme, approved under the
Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW)
--------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MX Downunder AsiaPac DevCon - http://mxdu.com/
