Re: AW: Uniquely identifying a record in SQL without a unique key? -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: AW: Uniquely identifying a record in SQL without a unique key?
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:54:41 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

Occasionally this debate rages. From those who say that a transaction log
that logs with a simple timestamp, which may not be unique, is ok and
doesn't need a unique key to those who say even that needs a unique key. I
can see both sides of the argument. Hey, even IBM's journals have a
transaction number that is unique. However, some may be concerned about
the disk space used, etc. Doesn't take much to generate a unique key.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: AW: Uniquely identifying a record in SQL without a unique key? , Joe Pluta

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.