As such, if you don't renumber, then the only thing left is to use a
timestamp, I guess.
[/snip]
No, if you have gaps you can still step through sequentially, like 14,
15, 18, 19, 20...
It's the gaps that are the problem.
I have no problem understanding why there are gaps in a dB and dealing with them. After all I've been juggling memory and bit-twiddling longer than I want to admit, so I understand "holes" in stuff. But what I am trying to solve is the simple thing of presenting records to a civilian such that there are no gaps in his record keeping.
I don't want to have to explain to my client why his dB has gaps in it. I don't want to listen to him asking why those gaps aren't filled. In fact, I don't want to raise the issue at all if I can get around it.
One way I found to get around this problem was to simply renumber the "id" filed in the table -- but, I received considerable advice against that from this list. I'm still not certain as to why that shouldn't be considered a "good" solution, but the "feelings" of the group are "don't do it".
So, I'm still trying to find a simple way around this problem. Either I renumber the "id" field OR provide an external counter to present to the user. I don't see any other solutions, does anyone?
Thanks.
tedd
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sperling.com