In reality I'll increment by 1 (from the last know maximum number), however
I used 100 for testing purposes.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[2]: Autonum -- having it both ways
>
>
>
>
> Is there a special reason you want to increment the autonumber by
> a 100? After
> all a 100 is just a 1 followed by 2 zero's. If you want
> uniqueness and are
> using autonum to insure it, what difference does it make if it a
> 1 or a 100?
> Like Tom said, 200,000 records in a database is nothing.
>
>
> G'day Dave,
>
> The solution depends a lot on what is acceptable. I don't forsee
> a problem in what you propose that would predictably break
> autonum. My experience with autonum has been very majorly
> problem free. I still use it on all but a few of the tables in BizMan
> and only not use it on those for reasons other than autonum unreliability.
>
> One consideration is with an upper limit of 2 billion in an integer
> column if you set the autonumber to increment by 100 you would
> not want to have an anticipated number of entries greater than 200,000.
>
> I had to provide in my Jobs table for users to import data from
> other programs so have a unique PK autonumber on JobID and
> another column for OPJobNum (other programs job number) for them
> to search for values based on the old system. Turns out many
> want to assign an ID to a job based on their own unique
> parameters so it's getting more use than I at first thought.
>
> So one solution might be to incorporate another ID column in
> which to insert the old numbers and leave the autonumb column
> alone - start at and increment by 1.
>
> Another might be to leave the autonumber off and first insert all the
> records from the old databases then set the autonum to one greater
> than the highest existing value.
>
> If you need to add old and new records progressively yours is not an
> unworkable solution.
>
> At 09:26 6/06/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >In a client table I'd like to use autonumber to assign the id numbers.
> >However, I'd also like to include the clients from the last two (RBase)
> >databases going back about ten years (this for record management
> purposes).
> >
> >Some of our client records may never have been in a database and
> there is a
> >possiblity that a large number of records may need to be
> inserted manually.
> >
> >My question is will I eventually break autonumber in this way? I don't
> >understand what activities may cause RBase to quit
> autonumbering. I'd had
> >(few) problems in the past that I could fix by deleting and
> recreating the
> >autonumber, but I'd like to know if I'm setting myself up.
> >
> >I've tested inserting numbers manually into an autonumber column and the
> >only effect I've seen is that the next autonumber skips ahead of
> what would
> >normally be assigned.
> >
> >For instance, if set to increment by 100 I can insert four records and
> >insert one record (100, 200, 300, 400, 50) the next autonumber
> is 600. This
> >is fine, I don't need a rigid sequence -- no one will ever ask me what
> >happened to 500.
> >
> >tia
> >
> >paranoid Dave
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Warmest regards,
>
>
> Tom Grimshaw
> coy: Just For You Software
> tel: 61 (0)2 9552 3311
> fax: 61 (0)2 9566 2164
> mobile: 0414 675 903
>
> post: PO Box 470 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
> street: 3/66 Wentworth Park Rd Glebe NSW 2037
>
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> web: www.just4usoftware.com.au
>
>
>
