Malcolm Greene wrote: > Micheal, > >> But to use an approach like this would require the use of GUID primary keys, I believe. Integers wouldn't work because of duplicates generated from multiple machines, or you'd have very complex logic for handling of integer keys to avoid pointing to the wrong records. > > I worked on a project where our offline clients would request a block of > primary keys from the centralized server vs. generate GUIDs. Each client > would assign primary keys from their local 'key cache', and when the > size of the cache reached a certain point, they would request another > block of primary keys from the master server during a sync session. > > Malcolm
<Shudder>. I follow you, but not sure if I'd like that approach. Still, with a limit of 2,147,483,647 numbers for an integer field, I guess that's not so bad to dish out a million numbers to 2147 clients. <g> _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
