Posted by Steve on 10/18/06 15:32

".:[ ikciu ]:." <no@mail.com> wrote in message
news:eh5eq7$ot6$1@news.dialog.net.pl...
| Hmm Steve <no.one@example.com> wrote:
|
| >> a) The product code is the ID, this is beyond my control as the
| >> products come from the supplier with these codes on. Yes I realise
| >> I could have set id to auto_increment, and then have another field
| >> for the product code, but I thought that as certain products HAVE TO
| >> HAVE a unique code it would be just a waste having an id field with
| >> auto_increment. Besides which it would be the product code that
| >> would be used for searching the data base, so i decided this would
| >> be set to primary and unique.
| >
| > that is a great start, however without another unique id, there is no
| > way to tell that product 'abc' has been edited and the code changed
| > to 'def'...when 'def' already existed. this means you will overwrite
| > the original 'def' record
|
| MAN this is a reason why i wrote the AUTOINCREMENT field is needed you
will
| update record where id = X not codeID = 'abc' GET IT FINALLY ?

OMFG. you want me to quote you? you said the ONLY thing needed was an
autoincrementing field. AND APPARENTLY I GOT IT BEFORE I EVER SPOKE TO
YOU...SINCE IT WAS IN MY FUCKING SOURCE CODE. i posted that source code when
at the time the ONLY thing you'd said was that the OP WAS STUPID FOR ASKING
THE QUESTION !!! further, you NEVER even addressed the overwrite
issue...EVER. 'get it finally' what a fucking joke...as are you.

you bafoon!

[Back to original message]