Thanks J.C. I never though about #2 but it makes some sense. I might think about using it. Thanks again.

>John,
>
>There are two ways I can think of where you can still work with the identity column on both databases.
>
>Solution #1 implicates calculating how much growth you anticipate for your databases and setting up the identity column seed so high in one of the databases that both sequences will not overlap in the foreseeable future.
>
>Solution #2 uses a different starting number for each database and sets the increment at two. Say DB1 has a seed of 1 and DB2 a seed of 2. When each of them use the increment value no numbers will ever be repeated and you should be safe for future growth too. #2 seems more elegant IMO.
>
>I think I picked this up from the administering SQL Server MOC.