Ed Leafe wrote: > On Dec 16, 2008, at 4:56 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account > wrote: > >>> I worked on a project where our offline clients would request a >>> block of >>> primary keys from the centralized server vs. generate GUIDs. Each >>> client >>> would assign primary keys from their local 'key cache', and when the >>> size of the cache reached a certain point, they would request another >>> block of primary keys from the master server during a sync session. >>> >>> Malcolm >> >> <Shudder>. I follow you, but not sure if I'd like that approach. >> Still, with a limit of 2,147,483,647 numbers for an integer field, I >> guess that's not so bad to dish out a million numbers to 2147 >> clients. <g> > > I've used a different approach. Each machine had its own ID, and its > own PK generator. The PK for the tables was compound, comprised of > both the machine ID and the generated sequential number, assuring that > no two PKs were the same. > > It worked well, but it was a bit of a pain to maintain at times, and > if it were today (this was in the mid-90s), I would much prefer to go > the GUID route.
There's a UUID function that can base part of the UUID on the workstation's MAC address or some other unique identifier. Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
