On 7/7/06, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:18:16PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> owns/resides there in a situation where the address can never be
> changed, e.g. "521 Main" splitting into "521A Main" and "521B Main."
And anyone who has looked at an even m
On 7/7/06, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 16:43, Aaron Bono wrote:
I'll repeat my previous statement that this is premature optimization,
and the hash is kind the wrong direction.
If you store an int and the 1 to 100 characters in a varchar, you'll
have about 4 to
On 7/7/06, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
Are you sure? I have a hard time imagining a situation where that
Absolutely.
Also, you need to get into a lot more coding to handle the fact that
"521 Main Avenue" is the same address as "521 Main Av." and "521 Main
Ave" and even "521 Main."
Actually that
On 7/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i agree. all my primary keys are abstract - even
though some don't have to be. iow, i'm comfortable
using serials as my primary key even when i don't
absolutely need to.
Yes I had in fact already created my table using a serial as the
pr
On 7/6/06, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That sort of undermines the value of the calculated primary key,
though, doesn't it? He'd need the unique index for FK references,
which was the point, I thought.
Yes, that occurred to me as well. Frankly I believe the md5 collision
genera
On 7/6/06, Markus Schaber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a good idea if you want to have taller indices, but you still
need to re-check the "real" key due to hash collisions.
I am aware there are collisions with md5 but without any actual proof
I believe the risk to be very low with the dat
I posted a couple of weeks back a question regarding the use of a 100
char column as a primary key and the responses uniformily advised the
use of a serial column. My concern is that the key is effectively
abstract and I want to use the column as a foreign key in other
tables. It occurred to me th
On 6/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Chris Browne wrote:
> Celko is decidedly *NOT* promoting the notion that you should use a
> 100 byte long "natural key."
>
> Jamie's comments of "Orthodox versus Reform" seem reasonably
> appropriate in outlining someth
I'm reading Joe Celko's book SQL Programming Style for the second time
and although I've been an OO developer for quite a few years I'm
fairly green wrt SQL. Joe is obviously something of a curmudgeon and I
would fall squarely into his newbie OO developer ordinal scale and I'm
trying to avoid the
