Ken Kixmoeller/fh wrote: > This discussion is so odd for me. back in the early days of my > development career, 20 years ago, I did something like a GUID for > PK's, though nobody I knew about used the term. It was a pure gut- > feel thing. > > Then, about 10 years ago, participating more with folks like you, > everybody convinced me that integer keys were the way to go, for both > performance and ease-of-development reasons. So I switched. > > Now, the tables are turned back, and I see Michael's (and others) > code, and it looks very familiar. <g> > > Maybe it *was* better performance in Fox/VFP days, but still...
I had a similar experience. I used keys based off of sys(2015) but was convinced by foxheads that these cause performance problem due to bloat. So I switched to a 4-byte char key with unreadable characters, which admittedly worked well (seemed faster) but it always bothered me that the keys weren't human readable (sucks for analyzing trouble). Then I switched to MySQL and stared using AUTO_INCREMENT integer keys, and liked their ease of use. But now I need to be able to generate the keys on the client side due to my offline architecture, so I must be sure they are unique without having to hit the server. So, here I am back at CHAR(40) again after all these years, with no plans on switching to anything different. 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.
