Folks, most people here seem to dislike Guids as primary keys. The article
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/32597/Performance-Comparison-Identity-x
-NewId-x-NewSeque via Bill is quite sobering, showing that NEWID is a
shocking performer, but INDENTIY and NEWSEQUENTIALID perform similarly well.
The problem with guids is they are not guaranteed to be unique: there's a
really large probability that they are unique. You still need to deal with
possible collisions. I'm guessing that NEWSEQUENTIALID is probably less
unique than machine generated guids.
|-Original Message-
|From:
I reckon I will skip writing code that has a 1 in 10^38 chance of being
needed
On Feb 6, 2012 10:33 AM, Bill McCarthy bill.mccarthy.li...@live.com.au
wrote:
The problem with guids is they are not guaranteed to be unique: there's a
really large probability that they are unique. You still need to
I am sure GUID collision detection code would be a good example of YAGNI.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Heinrich Breedt
heinrichbre...@gmail.comwrote:
I reckon I will skip writing code that has a 1 in 10^38 chance of being
needed
On Feb 6, 2012 10:33 AM, Bill McCarthy
V4 guid's don't use nic ids or timestamps anymore
On Feb 6, 2012 11:04 AM, Greg Keogh g...@mira.net wrote:
The problem with guids is they are not guaranteed to be unique:
Hang on! I thought that was their major selling point. They are supposed to
be sufficiently sparse and random over the 128
GUIDs (even by newSequencialID) are 4 times are large as INT's and if you are
using them as the Clustering Key as well as the primary key, then all of your
non-clustered indexes are bigger then they need to be too.
Kim Tripp probably says it best with her article:
Hi Greg,
The point I was making is that the main reason for using GUIDs is so that
the code that creates an object can assign an ID to it without having to
reference a single allocator for IDs. I could have five servers and four
apps and they can all happily create values and related objects
Thanks Greg
I get the point about saving the round trip!
I am starting to hope I can use my existing database structure replicated at
each site, with some kind of mapping system hosted in the cloud
The mapping table would be something like
GUID
SiteID - one for each installation
Greetings,
We have created a web-based user management system that works with Active
Directory however the development time has been greatly increased by not
having a local environment to develop and test against.
I have managed to get a copy of the remote domain brought into our network
with he
Is there any reason why you can't just use a bridge adapter and give it an
IP on the local subnet along with your development workstation?
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM, noonie neale.n...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
We have created a web-based user management system that works with Active
David,
Bridging is prohibited. If I could get the hardware I'd stick it behind a
real router :-(
--
noonie
On Feb 6, 2012 4:59 PM, David Connors da...@codify.com wrote:
Is there any reason why you can't just use a bridge adapter and give it an
IP on the local subnet along with your
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM, noonie neale.n...@gmail.com wrote:
David,
Bridging is prohibited. If I could get the hardware I'd stick it behind a
real router :-(
Isn't port forwarding a similar thing? If you explained it to
whoever's prohibiting bridging, they'd probably prohibit fwding
TMnetSim is primarily for simulating poor networks, but it might be able to do
the forward for you.
Near the bottom of this page... http://www.tmurgent.com/tools.aspx
Regards,
Nathan
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On
Behalf Of noonie
Sent: Monday, 6
13 matches
Mail list logo
