 | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Remy Evard
|
| | | A few minutes ago, I posted: (...) But... hm. A possible problem with documenting the key is that the unique key used in the Pause database appears to change over time. If TLC were to come out with another set numbered 8880, what would the keys be (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) No, the primary keys in that DB haven't changed since they were first created in April of 1998. When the DB is reborn out of its current form and into its new form, the old keys will be obsolete, but there will be a backward compatible (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | Todd, I guess what several of us want is for those keys (regardless of whether they should be seen by humans or not) to appear in the Pause listings. Many (?) of us use the Pause listings to generate tables in our own databases and then use that for (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Ok, I can stuff those in one of the columns. Are they most helpful in column 1, 2, or 9? --Todd (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Separate column please, don't make me parse it out of an existing one.. that's my opinion. As to what the keys are, I don't care, just as long as they are unique. However, as I have pontificated before, you are right. The primary key should be (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Oya definitely. I didn't mean overwriting one of the existing ones, sorry for the confusion. There are 8 columns now, so the new one would make sense either at 1 (first), 2 (first), or 9 (last). IMHO, it makes the most sense in column 1, but I (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Not a scream, just a squeak. Consider 9, as in last and keep it last if you add something else. It has less useful info to most readers and thus should be in the region the eye reads last. (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Remy Evard
|
| | | | | | lpieniazek@novera.com (Larry Pieniazek) wrote in <386943AA.328BCF33@v...ager.net>: (...) If the key you're talking about is in the form of "8880-1", then I think column 1 makes sense. I would actually be quite happy with that as a solution for a (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) OK, it's in column 9 now (the rightmost). Enjoy. --Todd (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3869394a.194671...net.com... (...) sense (...) sense (...) it (...) Todd, I think it's just the correct place to say, how about an additional column, too, if there is such an info available, or (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Unique keys for sets —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | The column order matters not to me, as long as it's there. Mike -- Mike Faunce mike at faunce dot com LUGNET #96 "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3869394a.194671...net.com... (...) sense (...) sense (...) it (...) (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
| | | | |
