> > What caused this distaste?
...
> I think it was the fact that identity fields were not
> related to PK's and in my code I always found myself going
> out of my way to do a return after an insert to get an
> identity field. But if I know what the PK is going to be
> ahead of time, that saves a step, besides IMHO it just seems
> "natural." When you look at somebody's name for example do
> you think of them as 222-3452-4455-9986? (This was just a
> fake GUID I just made up, may not be real).
Admittedly, using identity columns does require an extra step after
inserting, and looking at an identity value doesn't tell you anything about
the entity to which it's connected. (Of course, that's the whole point of an
identity value - it's completely unrelated to the data it represents!)
In my opinion, though, the extra step after an insert, and the alienation
you might feel about using identity values, are a small price to pay for not
having to worry about changes to natural primary keys, and not having all
that primary key data duplicated in a foreign table. One of the primary
goals of relational database design is to eliminate data redundancy, and
identity columns further that goal tremendously.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
