I would always use an indexed integer for a key...as opposed to a uuid.
Just my 2p
Kola
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Beard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 31 May 2001 18:14
To: Fusebox
Subject: Re: max_id or autonumber?
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
