MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: > Ed Leafe wrote: >> I've used a different approach. Each machine had its own ID, and its >> own PK generator. The PK for the tables was compound, comprised of >> both the machine ID and the generated sequential number, assuring that >> no two PKs were the same. >> >> It worked well, but it was a bit of a pain to maintain at times, and >> if it were today (this was in the mid-90s), I would much prefer to go >> the GUID route. > > > I hear ya, and agree. > > Paul -- for your disconnected approach, how did you handle deletes?
Much of this is still in design phase, understand. However, there are transaction logs on the client and server that sort out updates, inserts, and deletions. > Obviously "adds" are GUIDs that are in your local data but not the > server, and "updates" are GUIDs that exist in each and you take the one > with the latest modified date/time (assuming you have such a field on > the row), but I wondered how you handled deletes. My first thought is > that it's GUIDs that are on the server but not your computer, but that's > quickly nullified by the fact that that scenario could simply be new > records added by other people. I'm thinking you keep a separate table > or something where you know to "delete these records." Yeah I use only the transaction logs on either end to determine what needs to be updated each way. It would take too long to compare every record of every table over the network otherwise. Paul _______________________________________________ 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.
