473,889 Members | 1,401 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

What are cons and pros for using IDENTITY property as PK in SQL SERVER 2000?

Hi All!

We are doing new development for SQL Server 2000 and also moving from
SQL 7.0 to SQL Server 2000.

What are cons and pros for using IDENTITY property as PK in SQL SERVER
2000?
Please, share your experience in using IDENTITY as PK .
Does SCOPE_IDENTITY makes life easier in SQL 2000?

Is there issues with DENTITY property when moving DB from one server
to another? (the same version of SQL Server)

Thank you in advance,
Andy
Jul 20 '05
112 10389
You are starting to get on my nerves with your claims of having
super-preciseness that no one else has. You state:
Well, then apparently you are so good at English, and less good at being
precise. If natural keys and surrogate keys were in fact the same thing,
then why would we have multiple terms for these things?
I don't recall saying they are the same thing. I recall saying that one is

a subset of the other. Perhaps, if you had better grasp of written english,
you would have observed that the first time. I see nothing imprecise about
what I said.
Then you say
It is used as a surrogate key.


All keys are surrogates.


By anyones cound, a natural key must be a key. You state that all keys are
surrogates, hence, due to our old friend the transitive property, all
natural keys are surrogates. .

A surrogate key is a unique identifying attribute that is not derived from
any other data in the database and whose only significance is to act as an
identifying attribute.
By any other data, it means that the value is not based on the existence of
any other data. Otherwise all normalized data (one single source) is by
your definition surrogate data.
You name is part of what makes you you, because everyone has a name.


Your statement shows a general lack of imagination. Not every infant is
named at the moment of birth, and my name is not a part of me. It is
external to me, and I do not change when my name changes.


We are talking about modeling reality in relational database, not reality in
and of itself. Every column that makes up the table becomes part of the
essense of the row/instance of the entity being modeled. Not one column in
our person table reflects any real attribute of my being, as I am a human
being (go ahead, feel free to challenge it :) and as such not electronic.
However, the row in the database models me, and has as much information to
represent me as possible/necessary.
If it is a matter of taste, then I don't mind anyhow. I like hearing

others
opinions, and as to why my ideas are wrong if they are (and some are.)


It is not a matter of taste but a matter of education. By very objective
criteria, hiding the logical identifier from users is just plain stupid. A
user must have access to the logical identifier to properly and to

correctly express queries.
Two reasons this is wrong. One, most users do not do any direct querying
into an OLTP database directly. Generally all queries would be built for
them by administrators (possibly the meaning of user as I was using it was
not quite clear, I should have said end users)

But second, if I express the following query:

Select fieldList
from table1
join table2
on table1.table1Id entityKey = table2.table1Id entityKey

When have I ever seen this value? I haven't. This would likely never be
seen, even by administrative users, other than for convienience of not
typing a compound key that might contain a date value, or a guid, or
whatever is needed to naturally identify the row.
I have these discussions so I can improve my opinions that I
have carefully crafted over 11 years, and that I frequently give to

others.

Some people frequently give others syphyllus, but I would not congratulate
them for the deed. I suggest you get more out of the gift than the others
do.

The only think I can think to respond here is "You are a ninny." Though
that is possibly a bit sophisticated a response to such a preposterously
banal comment from someone who has such high regards for his own knowledge.
Again, I suggest your perception of anger suggests your ability to
comprehend written english sorely lacks. I invite you to consider whether
you project your own emotional state onto the words you read and to consider whether this might cloud your ability to interpret the meaning of those
words.
You are correct. You have been quite nice, and I apologise for miscontruing
your remarks as having any anger or animosity towards myself or any of the
other persons who have responded.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Louis Davidson (dr***@hotmail. com)
Compass Technology Management

Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266

Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are
interested in consulting services. All other replies will be ignored :)

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:Iu******** ************@go lden.net... "Louis Davidson" <dr************ ***@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:uO******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:Oq******** ************@go lden.net...

Then I can only conclude you lack the ability to comprehend relatively
simple written english.
Well, then apparently you are so good at English, and less good at being
precise. If natural keys and surrogate keys were in fact the same thing, then why would we have multiple terms for these things?


I don't recall saying they are the same thing. I recall saying that one is

a subset of the other. Perhaps, if you had better grasp of written english,
you would have observed that the first time. I see nothing imprecise about
what I said.

That might be a good definition of an IDENTITY column, but it has no

bearing
on surrogate keys. By equating the identity columns with surrogate
keys, you
only confuse yourself and potentially any similarly uneducated readers.
Nothing about a surrogate key requires a DBMS to generate it.


I did not come up with any of this terminology.


That's obvious. You do not comprehend the terminology either.

An identity is an
artificial key.


It is an rdbms generated key.

It is used as a surrogate key.


All keys are surrogates.

Jul 20 '05 #91
You make a good point in your last post, so I'd to like respond by
requesting you show a table definition that supports your argument. My table
for sake of argument has a VENDOR_ID which is an INDENTITY field, and a
VENDOR_NAME field, let's say VARCHAR(50) for sake of argument, which
contains the vendor's name. All other tables, for instance the invoice
table, has a column for VENDOR_ID which links the invoice to a specific
vendor.

What optional design would you propose?
--
BV.
WebPorgmaster - www.IHeartMyPond.com
Work at Home, Save the Environment - www.amothersdream.com
Jul 20 '05 #92
If you are replying to one of my messages, I have to remark that I make good
points in all of my posts. I have no desire to waste my time on pointless
messages.

I see nothing in your request to indicate you have understood any point I
have made thus far. I certainly see no reason to think an explicit schema
definition will help you, nor do I see anything relevant in the schema
outline you have given. Either you can comprehend written english and are
willing to think, or not. Either you understand what an antecedent is and
can identify one, or not. Either you will limit your objections to what I
have actually written, or you will argue with your own prejudices.

"BenignVani lla" <bv@tibetanbeef garden.com> wrote in message
news:or******** ************@gi ganews.com...
You make a good point in your last post, so I'd to like respond by
requesting you show a table definition that supports your argument. My table for sake of argument has a VENDOR_ID which is an INDENTITY field, and a
VENDOR_NAME field, let's say VARCHAR(50) for sake of argument, which
contains the vendor's name. All other tables, for instance the invoice
table, has a column for VENDOR_ID which links the invoice to a specific
vendor.

What optional design would you propose?
--
BV.
WebPorgmaster - www.IHeartMyPond.com
Work at Home, Save the Environment - www.amothersdream.com

Jul 20 '05 #93
"Louis Davidson" <dr************ ***@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Oo******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
You are starting to get on my nerves with your claims of having
super-preciseness that no one else has. You state:
Well, then apparently you are so good at English, and less good at being precise. If natural keys and surrogate keys were in fact the same thing, then why would we have multiple terms for these things?
I don't recall saying they are the same thing. I recall saying that one is a
subset of the other. Perhaps, if you had better grasp of written english, you would have observed that the first time. I see nothing imprecise about what I said.
Then you say
It is used as a surrogate key.


All keys are surrogates.


By anyones cound, a natural key must be a key. You state that all keys

are surrogates, hence, due to our old friend the transitive property, all
natural keys are surrogates. .
Natural keys are a subset of surrogate keys. Where have I suggested anything
different? Had I stated that natural keys and surrogate keys are the same
thing, I would have had to state that surrogate keys are a subset of natural
keys as well as vice versa. I don't recall ever writing any such thing.

A surrogate key is a unique identifying attribute that is not derived from
any other data in the database and whose only significance is to act as an identifying attribute.


By any other data, it means that the value is not based on the existence

of any other data. Otherwise all normalized data (one single source) is by
your definition surrogate data.
To contradict my statement, all you have to do is identify one concrete
example of a useful key that is not a surrogate for anything.

You name is part of what makes you you, because everyone has a name.


Your statement shows a general lack of imagination. Not every infant is
named at the moment of birth, and my name is not a part of me. It is
external to me, and I do not change when my name changes.


We are talking about modeling reality in relational database, not reality

in and of itself.
You are clutching at straws. Do you lack sufficient intellectual honesty to
cede a point when appropriate?

If it is a matter of taste, then I don't mind anyhow. I like hearing

others
opinions, and as to why my ideas are wrong if they are (and some are.)


It is not a matter of taste but a matter of education. By very objective
criteria, hiding the logical identifier from users is just plain stupid. A
user must have access to the logical identifier to properly and to

correctly
express queries.


Two reasons this is wrong. One, most users do not do any direct querying
into an OLTP database directly.


All users of the dbms use the dbms. I don't care about users of other things
who do not use the dbms.
[straw man example join snipped]
When have I ever seen this value?


How do you track down an alleged data anomaly reported from the field
without identifying data?

I have these discussions so I can improve my opinions that I
have carefully crafted over 11 years, and that I frequently give to

others.

Some people frequently give others syphyllus, but I would not congratulate them for the deed. I suggest you get more out of the gift than the others do.

The only think I can think to respond here is "You are a ninny." Though
that is possibly a bit sophisticated a response to such a preposterously
banal comment from someone who has such high regards for his own

knowledge.

By sophisticated do you mean? Impure? Adulterated? Having used sophistry?
Lacking natural simplicity? Not genuine? Rendered worthless by admixture?
Damaged? Perverted? Debased? Corrupted? Vitiated?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophisticated

Sophisticated has so many meanings its use is often nebulous. Regardless of
the meaning you intend, your sophistry underwhelms me.
Jul 20 '05 #94

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:Mp******** ************@go lden.net...
If you are replying to one of my messages, I have to remark that I make good points in all of my posts. I have no desire to waste my time on pointless
messages.

I see nothing in your request to indicate you have understood any point I
have made thus far. I certainly see no reason to think an explicit schema
definition will help you, nor do I see anything relevant in the schema
outline you have given. Either you can comprehend written english and are
willing to think, or not. Either you understand what an antecedent is and
can identify one, or not. Either you will limit your objections to what I
have actually written, or you will argue with your own prejudices.

<snip>

I am not arguing. You misunderstand me. This thread began with me using an
example of an IDENTITY column as foreign key to other tables. You took issue
with this. In my last post, I simply stated a simplified version of my table
design, and requested you provide an alternate configuration that in your
opinion displays the correct setup, as you imply mine is flawed.

I am not arguing. I am simply asking you to show an example of your
theoretical ideas. Instead of responding with an answer, you again resort to
insults.

So I tired being polite. I tried discussing the topic with you. You refuse
to do so.

I yield. BV zero. Troll 1.
--
BV.
WebPorgmaster - www.IHeartMyPond.com
Work at Home, Save the Environment - www.amothersdream.com
Jul 20 '05 #95
[Followups trimmed. This is not a Microsoft matter.]

In comp.databases Aaron Bertrand - MVP <aa***@trashasp faq.com> wrote:
I am by no means a SQL expert, so forgive me if this seems ignorant...But
why can't the ID columm be a natural key? For example, I am working on a
project that has a vendors table. The list of vendors is used in
relationship to several other tables. We build this table with an identity


An identity value that is generated by the system is not "natural".. . a
natural key means that the key is, by nature, identifying a single row...
not artificially because you generated some value for it. A natural key
could be an e-mail address, or a social security number, or a license plate
number, or a latitude and longitude -- something that is part of the data
that also happens to uniquely identify it.


Pardon my delurk: Social Security account numbers do not form a
candidate key for people in the United States. There is no unique
mapping from SSNs onto people, nor from people onto SSNs.

Defeating the mapping from SSNs onto people is the fact that the Social
Security Administration re-uses SSNs after their holders die and
benefits are paid out.

Defeating the mapping from people onto SSNs is the fact that the SSA
has been known to assign to the same person different SSNs over their
lifetime, especially to foreign students who become immigrants.

(ISTR seeing this on someone's online SQL tutorial at one point. It
really underscores for me the idea that relations in a database really
do need to reflect relationships in the world being modeled. It also,
perhaps, shows what happens when you use _someone else's artificial key_
(which is what an SSN is!) as if it were a _natural key_. That way lies
identity theft, or at least identity confusion ....)

--
Karl A. Krueger <kk******@examp le.edu>
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Email address is spamtrapped. s/example/whoi/
"Outlook not so good." -- Magic 8-Ball Software Reviews
Jul 20 '05 #96
"BenignVani lla" <bv@tibetanbeef garden.com> wrote in message
news:0c******** ************@gi ganews.com...

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:Mp******** ************@go lden.net...
If you are replying to one of my messages, I have to remark that I make good
points in all of my posts. I have no desire to waste my time on pointless messages.

I see nothing in your request to indicate you have understood any point I have made thus far. I certainly see no reason to think an explicit schema definition will help you, nor do I see anything relevant in the schema
outline you have given. Either you can comprehend written english and are willing to think, or not. Either you understand what an antecedent is and can identify one, or not. Either you will limit your objections to what I have actually written, or you will argue with your own prejudices.

<snip>

I am not arguing. You misunderstand me. This thread began with me using an
example of an IDENTITY column as foreign key to other tables. You took

issue with this.
I doubt very much that I took issue with a foreign key reference. Perhaps,
if you spent more time observing and thinking instead of assuming and
reacting, you would already know that.

In my last post, I simply stated a simplified version of my table
design, and requested you provide an alternate configuration that in your
opinion displays the correct setup, as you imply mine is flawed.


Where and how did I imply that? As I said in my previous post, "Either you
will limit your objections to what I have actually written, or you will
argue with your own prejudices." My statement was clear and my vocabulary
simple. Either you have the ability to comprehend simple written english, or
you do not.

You claim to have initiated this thread, which is cross-posted to three
newsgroups. You talk past what is written in the thread and refuse to
acknowledge the actual content. Yet, somehow, you claim I am the troll. Is
it not possible that you project your own character defects onto me?
Jul 20 '05 #97

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:cp******** ************@go lden.net...
"Louis Davidson" <dr************ ***@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Oo******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
You are starting to get on my nerves with your claims of having
super-preciseness that no one else has. You state:
> Well, then apparently you are so good at English, and less good at being > precise. If natural keys and surrogate keys were in fact the same thing,
> then why would we have multiple terms for these things?

I don't recall saying they are the same thing. I recall saying that one is
a
subset of the other. Perhaps, if you had better grasp of written english, you would have observed that the first time. I see nothing imprecise about what I said.
Then you say
> It is used as a surrogate key.

All keys are surrogates.


By anyones cound, a natural key must be a key. You state that all keys

are
surrogates, hence, due to our old friend the transitive property, all
natural keys are surrogates. .


Natural keys are a subset of surrogate keys. Where have I suggested

anything different? Had I stated that natural keys and surrogate keys are the same
thing, I would have had to state that surrogate keys are a subset of natural keys as well as vice versa. I don't recall ever writing any such thing.

You said that all keys are surrogate keys. So KEY = SURROGATE KEY. A
NATURAL KEY is not a subset of a key, it is a key. So SURROGATE KEYS are a
subset of KEYS, and NATURAL KEYS are a subset of KEYS, and there is some
intersection of SURROGATES and NATURAL KEYS where neither is a subset of the
other.

Hence a Surrogate Key is a key, and a Natural key is a key, but a key can be
a member of the set of natural keys, or the set of surrogate keys (and since
I didn't say XOR, it can be both.)
A surrogate key is a unique identifying attribute that is not derived from any other data in the database and whose only significance is to act
as
an identifying attribute.
By any other data, it means that the value is not based on the existence

of
any other data. Otherwise all normalized data (one single source) is by
your definition surrogate data.


To contradict my statement, all you have to do is identify one concrete
example of a useful key that is not a surrogate for anything.


DNA was a good example. A car's VIN number is (though it is a smart key
made up of many keys) not a surrogate. It is a massively compound key that
includes many real values (year produced, style, engine, and the sequence of
production etc.) While there are surrogate keys for each of the different
parts, the key itself is not a surrogate, but a description of the thing it
is representing.
> You name is part of what makes you you, because everyone has a name.

Your statement shows a general lack of imagination. Not every infant is named at the moment of birth, and my name is not a part of me. It is
external to me, and I do not change when my name changes.


We are talking about modeling reality in relational database, not reality in
and of itself.
You are clutching at straws. Do you lack sufficient intellectual honesty

to cede a point when appropriate?

No, you apparently lack intelluctual capability to discuss the concept of a
key strictly in database terms, not the real world. By your definition,
every adjective is a surrogate key for the thing it is describing. Is blue
a surrogate key for the color blue?
If it is a matter of taste, then I don't mind anyhow. I like hearing others
> opinions, and as to why my ideas are wrong if they are (and some are.)
It is not a matter of taste but a matter of education. By very objective criteria, hiding the logical identifier from users is just plain stupid.
A
user must have access to the logical identifier to properly and to correctly
express queries.


Two reasons this is wrong. One, most users do not do any direct querying
into an OLTP database directly.


All users of the dbms use the dbms. I don't care about users of other

things who do not use the dbms.
> I have these discussions so I can improve my opinions that I
> have carefully crafted over 11 years, and that I frequently give to
others.

Some people frequently give others syphyllus, but I would not

congratulate them for the deed. I suggest you get more out of the gift than the others do.

The only think I can think to respond here is "You are a ninny." Though
that is possibly a bit sophisticated a response to such a preposterously
banal comment from someone who has such high regards for his own

knowledge.

By sophisticated do you mean? Impure? Adulterated? Having used sophistry?
Lacking natural simplicity? Not genuine? Rendered worthless by admixture?
Damaged? Perverted? Debased? Corrupted? Vitiated?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophisticated

Sophisticated has so many meanings its use is often nebulous. Regardless

of the meaning you intend, your sophistry underwhelms me.


This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. If you do not know the
common use of the word sophistication, then you need to use that dictionary.
Strange that you skip the obvious common usage by most of the English
speaking folks. "Having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement; lacking
natural simplicity or naiveté"

Meaning you argue your point like a five year old with a high IQ. Attacking
things that are not the issue to distract from a lack of refinement (and I
am not indicating that you should be purified, I mean "cultivatio n, as in
manners or taste," specifically in manners)

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Louis Davidson (dr***@hotmail. com)
Compass Technology Management

Pro SQL Server 2000 Database Design
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=266

Note: Please reply to the newsgroups only unless you are
interested in consulting services. All other replies will be ignored :)
Jul 20 '05 #98

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:Pd******** ************@go lden.net...
<drivel snipped>

OK Bob, I tried...I give up you win. Troll away. I am done.
--
BV.
WebPorgmaster - www.IHeartMyPond.com
Work at Home, Save the Environment - www.amothersdream.com
Jul 20 '05 #99
"Louis Davidson" <dr************ ***@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:#B******** *****@tk2msftng p13.phx.gbl...

"Bob Badour" <bb*****@golden .net> wrote in message
news:cp******** ************@go lden.net...
"Louis Davidson" <dr************ ***@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Oo******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
You are starting to get on my nerves with your claims of having
super-preciseness that no one else has. You state:

> > Well, then apparently you are so good at English, and less good at being
> > precise. If natural keys and surrogate keys were in fact the same
thing,
> > then why would we have multiple terms for these things?
>
> I don't recall saying they are the same thing. I recall saying that one
is
a
> subset of the other. Perhaps, if you had better grasp of written

english,
> you would have observed that the first time. I see nothing imprecise

about
> what I said.

Then you say

> > It is used as a surrogate key.
>
> All keys are surrogates.

By anyones cound, a natural key must be a key. You state that all keys
are
surrogates, hence, due to our old friend the transitive property, all
natural keys are surrogates. .


Natural keys are a subset of surrogate keys. Where have I suggested

anything
different? Had I stated that natural keys and surrogate keys are the same thing, I would have had to state that surrogate keys are a subset of

natural
keys as well as vice versa. I don't recall ever writing any such thing.


You said that all keys are surrogate keys. So KEY = SURROGATE KEY. A
NATURAL KEY is not a subset of a key, it is a key. So SURROGATE KEYS are a
subset of KEYS, and NATURAL KEYS are a subset of KEYS, and there is some
intersection of SURROGATES and NATURAL KEYS where neither is a subset of

the other.
I never claimed that surrogate keys are a proper subset of keys--quite the
opposite. You have yet to demonstrate that surrogate keys are a proper
subset of keys. All candidate keys are surrogates, which makes candidate
keys a subset of surrogates. They are in fact a proper subset of surrogates.

> A surrogate key is a unique identifying attribute that is not derived
from
> any other data in the database and whose only significance is to act as
an
> identifying attribute.

By any other data, it means that the value is not based on the

existence of
any other data. Otherwise all normalized data (one single source) is
by your definition surrogate data.


To contradict my statement, all you have to do is identify one concrete
example of a useful key that is not a surrogate for anything.


DNA was a good example.


If it was such a good example, how was I able to shred the example so
easily? We have identical twins, chimeras, virus and mutation that make DNA
inappropriate to use as a candidate key. Quite simply if fails to provide
the most basic requirements of a candidate key: namely logical identity.

A car's VIN number is (though it is a smart key
made up of many keys) not a surrogate.
A VIN is not a car. It is a surrogate invented by the automobile industry
and assigned by the manufacturer.

While there are surrogate keys for each of the different
parts, the key itself is not a surrogate, but a description of the thing it is representing.
In other words, you agree the VIN is not the thing. It is a surrogate for
the thing that describes the thing. You have contradicted yourself.

> > You name is part of what makes you you, because everyone has a name. >
> Your statement shows a general lack of imagination. Not every infant is > named at the moment of birth, and my name is not a part of me. It is
> external to me, and I do not change when my name changes.
>

We are talking about modeling reality in relational database, not reality
in
and of itself.


You are clutching at straws. Do you lack sufficient intellectual honesty

to
cede a point when appropriate?


No, you apparently lack intelluctual capability to discuss the concept of

a key strictly in database terms, not the real world.
I agree. I completely lack intelluctual capability--including the
intelluctual capability to ignore the real world in support of absurd
notions. I do, however, have the intellectual honesty to cede a point when
appropriate--as seldom as it is appropriate.

Is blue
a surrogate key for the color blue?
As I said earlier, the representation "blue" is a surrogate for the value.
Actually, it is a surrogate for several different values in different
contexts. In some contexts, it is a surrogate for a concept encompassing a
range of visible wavelengths or combinations of wavelengths at various
amplitudes perceived by the human visual processing system as a wavelength
in the previous range of visible wavelengths. In another context, it is a
surrogate for a concept encompassing a range of depressed or melancholic
emotions. In another context, it is a surrogate for a concept of sexual
content suitable for adult audiences.

> > If it is a matter of taste, then I don't mind anyhow. I like hearing > others
> > opinions, and as to why my ideas are wrong if they are (and some are.) >
> It is not a matter of taste but a matter of education. By very objective > criteria, hiding the logical identifier from users is just plain stupid.
A
> user must have access to the logical identifier to properly and to
correctly
> express queries.

Two reasons this is wrong. One, most users do not do any direct

querying into an OLTP database directly.


All users of the dbms use the dbms. I don't care about users of other

things
who do not use the dbms.

> > I have these discussions so I can improve my opinions that I
> > have carefully crafted over 11 years, and that I frequently give to > others.
>
> Some people frequently give others syphyllus, but I would not

congratulate
> them for the deed. I suggest you get more out of the gift than the

others
> do.
>
The only think I can think to respond here is "You are a ninny." Though that is possibly a bit sophisticated a response to such a preposterously banal comment from someone who has such high regards for his own

knowledge.

By sophisticated do you mean? Impure? Adulterated? Having used

sophistry? Lacking natural simplicity? Not genuine? Rendered worthless by admixture? Damaged? Perverted? Debased? Corrupted? Vitiated?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophisticated

Sophisticated has so many meanings its use is often nebulous. Regardless

of
the meaning you intend, your sophistry underwhelms me.


This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. If you do not know the
common use of the word sophistication, then you need to use that

dictionary.

The whole point is I do know the meanings of sophistication: unnaturalness,
impurity, complexity and sophistry. Which of them did you mean?

I suggest, if you make an effort to understand the words you see and use,
you will improve your ability to comprehend relatively simple english.
Otherwise, you simply refuse to communicate.

Strange that you skip the obvious common usage by most of the English
speaking folks. "Having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement; lacking
natural simplicity or naiveté"


Strange that you didn't notice I included "lacking natural simplicity."
Perhaps, if you also make greater effort to be observant, you will further
improve your ability to comprehend relatively simple written english.
Jul 20 '05 #100

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

9
2305
by: Phil W | last post by:
Hi all, Am having a bit of trouble with the @@identity field - I probably just have that friday feeling and am missing off something obvious, but the below code brings back am empty identity value ("sid" appears empty). I've definitely set up an identity field in the tblSurvey: set rsAdd = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Recordset") rsAdd.open "tblSurvey", conn, 3 , 3 rsAdd.AddNew
3
11446
by: Mark | last post by:
Hi, How to add a foreign key constraint using the SQL server 2000 enterprise manager? Not by SQL. thanks
0
9805
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
11188
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10785
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
10439
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9603
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
1
7991
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
5825
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
2
4249
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3253
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.