Bob.... the guy referred to the @@Identity environmental variable, which *is* SQL-Server....

All I am saying is that there is a perception that there is a problem with identity fields. That is not the case. I would hate to see somebody throw the baby out with the bath water because they were not fully informed. FWIW, I often use incrementing values for non-identity fields that still need to be unique. It just so happens they are all in SQL - not Fox...

>I would have to say this is a little MS-sited. Oracle doesn't have 'Identity Fields' in the sense SQL Server does... They support an ID table which holds the next value... It is just a little more automated than it is in VFP... So, the technique is sound and acceptable... if you want to use the same database design and code for SQL Server and Oracle I see no problem with using an ID table instead of identity fields.
>


>Also, you may use a database that is highly distributed... (Out side sales people adding customers and orders to offline views) you can't wait to assign PK's till you get a connection... Or, doing it would not be the most efficient way... so, you decided to use UUID's as PK's... that rules out the Identity field.
>

Can you say MSDE...?? Anything regarding views, Remote/offline/otherwise, I don't have much regard for with respect to C/S work. For local stuff, sure. For SQL-Server work, no way...

>Let's think outside the [MS] box here.

Why??? I don't need to do with regard to this topic....<s>...