On Dec 16, 2008, at 4:56 PM, MB Software Solutions General Account
wrote:
>> 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>
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.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
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.
