Thats because your a DBA's lil pet monkey :) How about using a UUID and a typical Autonumber key?
Scott Barnes -- Freelance Application Developer / Designer -- ph: 07 3288 6702 mob: 04040 32812 -- url: http://www.spidaweb.com "Jason Barnes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:22349@cfaussie... > > Yeah but where are the performance comparisons? I don't think anyone would > doubt uuids are easier to use but there is no way my DBA would allow me to > use anything as inefficient as a 32 character non-sequential string uuid as > the primary key. As a primary key its about as inefficient and slow a thing > you could possibly use. > > > "Geoff Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:22171@cfaussie... > > > > Scott Barnes wrote: > > > 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 > > ...snip8<.... > > > > Without getting into the debate (yikes.. too many posts to keep up) we > > always use UUIDs. There is a nice summary of good reasons here: > > http://www.codebits.com/uuid/index.htm > > > > -- geoff > > http://www.daemon.com.au/ > > > > > > > > > > --- 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/
