Dian
nd500_lo at charter.net
Thu Sep 8 21:30:25 CDT 2005
Hmmmmmm....me, too...my life has turned upside down twice...and this discussion goes on...pretty cool... -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of John W. Colby Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:49 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: Re: [AccessD] Autonumber Assigned Immediately Ahhh, I do so love this debate. John W. Colby www.ColbyConsulting.com Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause: http://folding.stanford.edu/ -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of David Mcafee Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 4:58 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [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 === -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com