Paul McNett wrote: > 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).
Right...every day I'm always doing SQL based on integer PKs...that'll be harder with GUID keys, for sure. > > Then I switched to MySQL and stared using AUTO_INCREMENT integer keys, and > liked > their ease of use. Ditto there. But I do like the ability to create the key AHEAD of the insert so that child rows could be populated with the proper PK before the INSERT/SAVE operations. > > 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. Another reason why I'm going to GUIDs. > > So, here I am back at CHAR(40) again after all these years, with no plans on > switching to anything different. -- Mike Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC President, Chief Software Architect http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com http://twitter.com/mbabcock16 _______________________________________________ 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.
