Funny, I too started with SYS(2015). For me though, I have never stopped. I had thought about moving to integer keys since everything in the vfp and sql server world suggested it, but I never got around to implementing it.
Glad I skipped it, as to me, the GUID makes the most sense, whether it's sys(2015) in some flavor or something stronger. I've needed the human readable aspect of sys(2015) on many occasions for trouble shooting problems, and would never implement a non readable key. When my data sizes start getting really large or my # of simultaneous users really starts growing I'll probably switch to a larger guiid and finally let go of sys(2015). >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 > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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.
