Re: Missing numbers ( was Re: ) -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: Missing numbers ( was Re: )
From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:47:24 -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>

Tom Liotta wrote:

Beyond that, having a second table that lists all valid keys brings the opportunity for exceptions in a clear fashion in SQL.

Not to beat this horse too terribly, but if you're going to add another table, a deleted key table is in many ways a better solution. It is *always* a single SETLL/READ to see if there's a hole, and it's even easy in SQL <grin>. The only downside is it requires an extra write when you delete a record and an extra delete when you reuse a deleted key.

Joe

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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.