Thanks for all the feedback everyone - but I've still some lingering questions...
> In SQL Server, it's called an IDENTITY column. It's basically the same > thing. Most database systems have some way to create a surrogate key - a key > which is created by the database, rather than drawn from the actual data. A developer who handled converting my Access DB to SQL Server for a client told me I had to rewrite all my INSERT queries to use SELECT MAX(ID), because there was no equivalent to AUTONUMBER in SQL Server. Eh? My problem is, I want to create an Access-based app template where the SQL code is as portable as possible between DB systems - specifically, Access and SQL Server. Why not carry on using AUTONUMBER, and convert that field to IDENTITY if upsizing? Why bother having a slightly risky 2-step transaction (or slightly performance- hurting transaction if isolation="serializable") for Access, only to have to switch all this to a stored procedure or trigger when upsizing to SQL Server? Why do Fusebox advise using the MAX_ID tag for and the 2-step INSERT for "portability" reasons - is this only when converting to non-MS stuff like Oracle or Sybase? Steve's documentation for the tag says: "Because autonumber datatypes are not easily transferable from database to database." Does this count for Access > SQL Server (i.e. AUTONUMBER > IDENTITY)? I've not upsized Access > SQL Server before. Maybe I should give it a go before I finalise this template code, but I thought I'd check with some people who have probably struggled with this a while ago ;) - Gyrus ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
