[AccessD] Autonumber Assigned Immediately

You shuld see the ERP system I am working with
Lambert...ugh...

Natural keys, 3 to 5 PKs per table. table joins
require three to five joins. THis would have been
simplified with one autonumber PK.

Header tables are stored with detail tables (child)
totals. I would never think of selling a system like
this, I don't know how companies can put out dtuff
like this.


David



--- "Heenan, Lambert" <Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com> wrote:

> For some wild reason this issue just never goes
> away. I for one (in my
> simple way of thinking) have never ever seen a need
> to use a composite key,
> natural key, surrogate key, call it what you will.
> Dumb old AutoNumbers fit
> the bill just fine for me. As you say, they ID the
> rows perfectly.  To my
> way of thinking anyone who depends on natural keys
> to maintain table
> relationships is asking for trouble because users
> have a nasty habit of
> wanting to alter data.
> 
> Lambert
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On
> Behalf Of Reuben Cummings
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:42 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned
> Immediately
> 
> 
> If that's the argument then we could never create a
> perfect ID because the
> data can always change regardless of how the
> programmer decides to ID it.
> Whether I use autonumber 6 or custom ID ZX4-TD54D
> the data can always chnage
> and both ID's can and will always get me to the
> proper place.
> 
> For your scenario to be correct so that an ID
> identifies the data then the
> programmer would need to make a routine that would
> take parts of several
> fields and piece it together.  However, if the data
> changes one of two
> things will happen.  One, the created ID will not
> match the new data if the
> programming does not change it upon a data change. 
> Or, two, the ID is
> changed and then the ID does not match an ID that
> may have been written on a
> paper version of an application, for example, and
> then there is no way to
> know what record relates to that paper copy.
> 
> I beleive the autonumber DOES identify the data. 
> The number ID's the row.
> The data is in the row ID'd by the number. 
> Therefore the number identifies
> the data.
> 
> Damn, I got drug back into this thing.
> 
> Reuben Cummings
> GFC, LLC
> 812.523.1017
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On
> Behalf Of Charlotte 
> > Foust
> > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:14 PM
> > To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> solving
> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned
> Immediately
> >
> >
> > You miss the point.  Autonumber 6 doesn't change
> but the data in the 
> > row does.  My point was that Autonumber 6 doesn't
> identify the data in 
> > any way, merely the row that the data happens to
> be stored in.  I'm 
> > not opposed to autonumbers, I use them all the
> time.  What I'm opposed 
> > to is trying to turn the autonumber into a
> meaningful value.
> >
> > Charlotte Foust
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Reuben Cummings
> [mailto:reuben at gfconsultants.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:25 AM
> > To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> solving
> > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned
> Immediately
> >
> >
> > You're correct Charlotte, but I've also NEVER seen
> a case where 
> > autonumber 6, for example, changed which row of
> data it is connected 
> > to. It always ID's the same row for life.  I have
> never agreed to the 
> > statement that the data is separate from the
> autonumber - they ARE in 
> > the same row.
> >
> > IMO, the autonumber field is simply a way to
> create sequential 
> > numbering without writing a bunch code to do so. 
> The fact that it can 
> > also be the Primary Key is just an added benefit. 
> Why include two 
> > completely unique numbers in a row if one will do
> two jobs?  I'm a big 
> > fan of simplicity.
> >
> > This will lead to a ridiculous discussion - again
> - so I agree to 
> > disagree
> > ;)
> >
> > BTW, Charlotte, because I have never driven a nail
> with a screwdriver 
> > that method of driving nails is, in fact, NOT a
> valid method.  :)  
> > I'll let the list know if I ever do.  However, an
> adjustable wrench is 
> > acceptable.
> >
> > Reuben Cummings
> > GFC, LLC
> > 812.523.1017
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> > > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On
> Behalf Of Charlotte 
> > > Foust
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:04 AM
> > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> solving
> > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned
> Immediately
> > >
> > >
> > > No, it is a row identifier and therefore always
> points to the same 
> > > row, period.  The data in that row are entirely
> independent from the 
> > > autonumber, which is what leads to all the
> intense discussions of 
> > > "primay key" vs "unique key" vs "surrogate key",
> etc.  The fact that 
> > > you have used it this way doesn't make it any
> more valid a usage. 
> > > After all, you can drive nails with a
> screwdriver too. ;->
> > >
> > > Charlotte Foust
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Reuben Cummings
> [mailto:reuben at gfconsultants.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:46 AM
> > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> solving
> > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned
> Immediately
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know why everyone is so adamant about no
> showing an 
> > > autonumber. I agree technically they shouldn't
> be shown.
> > >
> > > But sometimes a simple solution is the best. 
> For example, we 
> > > currently have some contracts to 'digitize' a
> state required form 
> > > for several local counties.  Our solution to
> digitize is merely 
> > > enter the data into a DB we created.  However,
> the paper copies have 
> > > to remain available. We number every form we put
> in so that the user 
> > > can then search and find a paper copy by using
> the number generated 
> > > by the software.
> > >
> > > Initially we did this using the autonumber and
> it worked perfectly 
> > > (we
> >
> > > had to abandon it to allow multiple entry
> persons for one county.
> 
=== message truncated ===