Subject:
|
Re: Unique keys for sets
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 1999 07:11:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Selçuk <teyyareci> <sgore@superonline.AVOIDSPAMcom>
|
Viewed:
|
281 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:3869394a.194671379@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.database, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.database, Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > Ok, I can stuff those in one of the columns. Are they most helpful in
> > > column 1, 2, or 9?
> >
> > Separate column please, don't make me parse it out of an existing one..
> > that's my opinion.
>
> 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 don't know how that might disrupt current behaviors of
> code importing the table. If no one screams to the contrary, I'll stuff • it
> in column 1 and push the current columns 1-8 over to columns 2-9.
>
> --Todd
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 would be available in
future for sets that would be added to db in the future:
"Date at which the set added to the db"
This would be wonderful for keeping our personal databases up to date.
Selçuk
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Unique keys for sets
|
| (...) 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)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
