Jeff,
> Thanx for your help. I found replace into to be a nice convience since my
> primary keys are often expressions build from several fields which I want to
> keep unique. Replace into enforces this uniqueness. I was learning SQL
> when I started this project so I didn't know this was non-standard. Bummer.
No, what you're describing are called "composite keys". They are a
standard part of SQL, but most developers end up using numerical
surrogate keys because they are easier to handle.
> But since my primary keys are expressions, I can't use the technique you
> suggested. I'm thinking of simply trying the insert and checking to see if
> I get an error. If I get an error, I do an update... Not sure how well
> this will work, tho.
Better to do it the other way. Search for that key; if it's returned, do
an update; if the results are NULL, do an insert. If your table has few
fields (<15) you can even do this through a function, passing the field
values as parameters of the function.
-Josh Berkus
--
______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________
Josh Berkus
Complete information technology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and data management solutions (415) 565-7293
for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533
and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
