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

Subject: Re: Uniquely identifying a record in SQL without a unique key ?
From: "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:48:59 -0800
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>

On 1/28/13 10:07 AM, Richard Schoen wrote:

Maybe I missed something, but why wouldn't an ID field work as the unique key ? :-)

It would work perfectly, were this an application that owned its own database, and could therefore dictate the design thereof. But in an access utility (which is what we're actually discussing here), can we always assume that we will have the privilege of dealing with a well-constructed database, with a proper primary key?

(You know it's a frustrating day at work when you're impatiently looking forward to your appointment with the oral surgeon!)

--
JHHL

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.