Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)
From: Lynn Trapp (ltrappNoSpam_at_ltcomputerdesigns.com)
Date: 01/19/05
- Next message: Gerry: "How update a Table value with Form's calculated control?"
- Previous message: Lynn Trapp: "Re: Multiple Users from differant sites accessing the same Databas"
- In reply to: Jeff Boyce: "Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)"
- Next in thread: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)"
- Reply: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:42:28 -0600
> I agree with everything Lynn mentioned.
>
I knew you were a smart guy, Jeff... <g>
> In dbs with multiple related tables, I've found it more
> efficient (read "lazy") to use autonumber primary keys to save effort in
> relating the tables.
I'm not so sure it's a matter of "laziness" as it is more effecient for the
database engine. Of course, there are people, who will remain unnamed until
they name themselves, that will disagree with that.
> But I also use a "natural" primary key when it serves no purpose to
> include
> an artificial (autonumber) key.
That should be standard practice, in my view. A table storing department
information for a company has a perfectly good natural key of Department
Name, which should never be duplicate. Using an AutoNumber here does nothing
to speed up the processing, especially since the Department Name field would
have a primary index on it.
-- Lynn Trapp MS Access MVP www.ltcomputerdesigns.com Access Security: www.ltcomputerdesigns.com/Security.htm
- Next message: Gerry: "How update a Table value with Form's calculated control?"
- Previous message: Lynn Trapp: "Re: Multiple Users from differant sites accessing the same Databas"
- In reply to: Jeff Boyce: "Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)"
- Next in thread: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)"
- Reply: Tim Ferguson: "Re: Primary Keys (to autonumber or not ?)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|