George,

>I've snipped this because I'm simply not going to waste the time or bandwidth in addressing every point. We've been there and done that.

>It comes down to this: I gave three reasons why I wouldn't I wouldn't use your technique. You didn't argue the first two. The third (additional unnecessary overhead) you call insignificant. That's your opinion. You're entitled to that. My opinion differs. I'm entitled to that.

So we have to agree that we've different opinions about it significants.

>I don't know if you realize how insulting I've found some of your remarks ("blindly", "unthoughtful", etc. towards me), but I've pretty much refrained from lowering myself to doing the same towards you.

It has never been my intention to insult you, it is simply my way of expressing my thoughts in an attempt to let you think about this issue also. It seems I've failed in that. I'm sorry if I insulted you; my appologies....

>I'm guessing that your underlying motivation here maybe to "hang another MVP hide on your wall" (re: index tag on DELETED(), "...only Christof was brave enough...").

Nope, my mission here on the thread is slightly different but is strongly related to the described thread. If I come accross statements that don't seem right to me, I'll jump in, and discuss this statement. It's ment as a constructive way to work to a conclusion that is far more detailed than the original statement (as I did in the described thread, the discussion about using intelligent keys, surrogates key, naming conventions, and this one). whether one agrees with the conclusion I draw is insignificant as long as people can see themselves what the details are. In this thread I've provided an example which generates data about the performance hit of using the MAX() function, which enabled people to draw the conclusion themselves from scientific data. Which is a lot different than just relying on a simple "performance hit" statement.

The reason I have this discussion with MVPs more than non-MVPs is because I feel that MVPs are the people who should forfill a teaching role in explaining techniques. If I see them making a statement that seems odd, incomplete or simple incorrect, I'll jump on it in an attempt to clarify the statement and get the details. Whether I'm right or the other does not bother me a lot, as long as lurkers can get the details and draw the conclusion themselves.

>Your not going to get it. I've always tried to provide technically accurate information, tell people when I'm guessing and admit when I'm wrong and apologize to them. This particular situation doesn't apply. Why? Because this is strictly a matter of differing opinions. You have your's, I have mine. Let's leave it at that, and make this EOT.


Again, I'm sorry if I insulted you.

O.K EOT.

Walter,