3 ms·
It's actually an error I've seen multiple times in the past, and I'm not even working with databases full time. I do think it's surprising that no one had thoug
by dx034 6y ago
It's actually an error I've seen multiple times in the past, and I'm not even working with databases full time. I do think it's surprising that no one had thought of implementing at least checks for these conditions.
- capableweb 6y agoYeah, I think most people who touch/interact with backend/database code, even if not actually backend/DB developers, have a reaction nowadays to seeing auto-incremental IDs because it's famously hard to scale to any distributed architecture + introduces issues when you hit the limit. Projects started in the last three years that I've collaborated/been part of have all ditched the auto incremental IDs.
- baq 6y agoAuto incrementing integer ids have some very desirable properties though. Not sure what you replaced them with.
- dijit 6y agoSomething I see more and more is a primary key based on guid/uuid; I'm not fully aware of the merits of either approach, so I'm just putting the info I have at hand out there.