which db is it that doesn't support autonumber type fields?
also, my dba's here tell me that integers search faster (with indexes) or
some such nonsense.. 2cents.
At 08:41 AM 5/31/01 -0400, you wrote:
>If you're unsure about the max_id stuff.... try UUIDs.
>
><cfquery ... >
> INSERT INTO table(ID, Field1, Field2 etc)
> VALUES('#createuuid()#','#Field1#', '#Field2#')
></cfquery>
>
>No transaction needed and it's database independent. As long as you've
>got a clustered index on that table you won't have any speed problems
>with searches even though it's a text string.
>
>The only issue which is only a psychological issue is the fact that the
>PKs will be 35 characters long.
>
>Steve Nelson
>
>Ross Keatinge wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks
> >
> > I know this is an old recurring discussion but I still can't find a
> > good answer in the various CF mailing lists.
> >
> > I'm soon to start building a new web application with CF and XFB. I'm
> > convinced that meaningless integer primary keys for db tables are the
> > way to go (although that is another discussion in itself). Our database
> > is MS SQL Server 7. I'm still tossing up the question of whether to use
> > the db provided identity functionality or roll my own using something
> > like Steve's cf_max_id tag. I think identity fields work fine in SQL
> > Server 7 and they are certainly tempting. However, I like the feeling
> > of 'freedom' from db dependent features so a normal int field with
> > SELECT MAX(ID) is appealing to some extent. As Steve's docs say, moving
> > to another db is a lot easier without autonumbers.
> >
> > The recommended use of cf_max_id results in something like this:
> >
> > <cftransaction>
> > <cfquery name="GetMaxID">
> > SELECT MAX(ID) FROM table
> > </cfquery>
> >
> > <cfquery>
> > INSERT INTO table
> > (ID, Field1, Field2 etc)
> > VALUES(#GetMaxID.Max_D#,'#Field1#', '#Field2#')
> > </cfquery>
> > </cftransaction>
> >
> > Is that really safe in a multi threaded environment? It doesn't look
> > like it to me. As far as I know <cftransaction> doesn't stop me losing
> > the CPU between the two queries. If I am interupted there, what would
> > happen to a second page hitting the same code? Would it just hang at
> > the cftransaction or what? What odbc isolation lock type is
> > appropriate? I know cflock would fix it but that seems like a bad idea
> > or is it really any worse?
> >
> > Any comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ross
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
