Posted by linda on 11/01/06 15:49

"Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
news:kuCZg.524$wt4.377@newsfe02.lga...
>
> "linda" <newsaccount@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4536dbd1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> |
> | "Breklin" <breklin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> | news:oGzZg.988$T_1.417@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> | > Hi Linda,
> | >
> | > I wrote you a simple script quite a few posts ago that use both a
> record
> | > id (auto_incremented) and a productid, which you get from your
> supplier.
> | > It seems that Steve agrees with my approach, too, of using both. One
> is
> | > a unique id for the table record you are dealing with which can be
> used
> | > for quick look up in your queries and WHERE statements. The other is
> for
> | > you to validate against it's existence. I do this with several ecom
> | > sites I have built and it works great because, if, I am updating a
> | > particular record, I will use the auto_incremented 'id' field to
> update
> | > the record data. If I am inserting, I want to make sure that there are
> | > no duplicate records for the productid that was manually entered, i
> can
> | > use that to make sure i'm not duplicating that product.
> | >
> | > See if you can find what I wrote. Otherwise, I'll pound it out again.
> | >
> | > Cheers.
> | >
> | Hi Breklin,
> |
> | I have download it, I haven't had much time today to look at either
> yours
> or
> | Steve's, as i'm off for a few days much needed rest as of tomorrow, but
> I
> | have printed both off to take with me. These will no doubt be read
> whilst
> | relaxing under an umbrella in the rain:-0
> |
> | I have as of tonight, (having given it a lot of thought) come round to
> the
> | idea perhaps I should use a separate Id field, and have now added this.
> | Though I must admit I don't fully understand how it would prevent any
> | duplicates. But as I have little knowledge on which to base any theory,
> I
> | felt that as those that did were telling me of it's benefit I would
> listen
> | to the voices of experience. And of course I'm going to do some more
> reading
> | on this particular topic also.
> |
> | Have a great week, and thank you very much for the helpful code. I will
> no
> | doubt be back next week with question for you both, that is if you don't
> | mind! As I'm sure there will be things I'm not one 100% on.
> |
> | Kindest regards,
> | Linda
> |
>
> linda,
>
> breklin has the correct approach and his script is probably more easily
> digestable than the one it posted. the unique id you (the
> auto-incremented)
> assign is important as well as the product code itself. it helps you know
> if
> you're updating an existing record with the same product code being used
> or
> if the existing record is the one you're currently editing. anyway,
> breklin
> has covered the based in the script he posted. it may be good to puruse
> both
> and see if you can find where both our scripts handle the same problem.
> there's always more than one way to skin a cat, as they say.
>
> cheers
>
>

Hi Steve,

I Steve back from my break afresh! I agree, I went with breklin's code in
the end, though I have kept yours for a later date, as I get more
comfortable with php/mysql. Many thanks for all your help with this, I'm
very grateful to you.

Best wishes,
Linda

[Back to original message]