Martijn Tonies schrieb:
>
>>>>>>> [...] why in procedure TRUNCATE table
>>>>>>> demo do not reset auto_increment?
>>>>>> is clearly written in the documentation, just read ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in short:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> auto_increment is used for primary key, primary keys could be
>>>>>> referenced
>>>>>> from another table, setting auto_increment back to 0 could lead
> to
>>>>>> using a
>>>>>> primary key formerly used by another datarow and still referenced
> by
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> table - could lead to data inconsistency.
>>>>> lol, but TRUNCATE empties the table... What good are your
> references?
>>>> it is better to have references leading to 'nothing' than to a wrong
>>>> datarow
>>>> ... i think this is very easy to understand - better save than sorry!
>>> Why is a row with an invalid reference better? It's invalid data and you
>>> just corrupted your database.
>> please define 'invalid' - i think invalid is it in booth cases, so an empty
>> invalid is better than a wrong invalid, or not?
>
> IMO, you're f***ed in both cases :-)
>
>> better have an unpayed bill leading to no costumer than to a wrong customer
>
> Why is that better? If you TRUNCATEd the table, you know you're doing
> something wrong/your data is messed up.
yes, but this was not the point of the discussion
the point was why is auto_increment not reset - and the above is the reason
for this - i was not discussing if this is good or bad, or if it is good to
delete table content, or if the table content was deleted by accident
> As I said, what I wanted to point out is that this piece in the
> documentation is a bit strange.
yes, i have read it ... ;-)
--
Sebastian
