> > no - dont do that for the reasons you indicate. Instead use a > > sequence, or > > other database generated number (my opinion). given the current > > options, > > this is my preferred choice - and you will not incur the cost of > > locking the > > table. (note here that a sequence is a vendor specific thing). > > What about simply using an UUID instead? That way you can generate a > truly unique primary key on the client side and not incur any overhead > communicating back and forth with the server just to get a key.
unjustifyable desire to have a relatively easy way of identifying rows. UUIDs are definately quicker from a performance pov.... I'll eventually come around (o: cheers dim =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff EJB-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
