Topics

locked deleting a row doesn't result in new row numbers #bug?


 

I just deleted row #1 from a database with five rows, and the database now shows as starting with row #2. There are only four rows now in the database, yet the last row is still labelled #5.

Even though (or maybe because) the "number of rows" before clicking on the database is shown as 4, I think the row #s within the database itself are now misleading and wrong.

I understand the reasoning for leaving gaps in message numbers when a message is deleted, but I think database row #s should be adjusted to account for deletion. 

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I just deleted row #1 from a database with five rows, and the database now shows as starting with row #2. There are only four rows now in the database, yet the last row is still labelled #5.

I did this on purpose, to emulate what Y Groups databases do. Do people not like this?

Thanks,
Mark 


 

Mark,

I myself never used a database in Y!G. But thinking more about this, what is the actual purpose, if any, of a row# column? You could save yourself some work by simply eliminating it. I'm not sure it serves any useful purpose. The row# is no longer really an ordinal number if you leave gaps, and the highest one is not a cardinal number. So what good is it? The total number of rows is already displayed at the top of the database. I don't see that the row# contains any useful information in the first place, let alone if it's not adjusted for deletions.

I hope this doesn't turn into a "we need it because Yahoo does it" issue.

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Jean Bennett
 

Our members find this annoying.  We would prefer that the row numbers automatically adjust when one is deleted.  If that cannot easily be accomplished, we would prefer that row numbers be eliminated rather than the current situation.  We didn't like the way it was handled in Yahoo either.

Jean


Duane
 

I don't see a need for the row number to be displayed. I believe they should show up in the order entered by default, but I think most of us will be sorting on another column when trying to find something.

Duane


 

The only (useful, or possibly useful) information that I can see in it is to know which rows were entered first, or last, or before or after others, etc. But a 'date entered ' field would serve that purpose better and not have to be adjusted for gaps when there are deletions. It could be made automatic and an optional column.

Sent from my iPhone

On May 24, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

I don't see a need for the row number to be displayed. I believe they should show up in the order entered by default, but I think most of us will be sorting on another column when trying to find something.

Duane


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Mark,

My group members are starting to like the database and enter their cats into it. If you're going to delete the row# column, or are considering deleting it, I would like to know whether an existing database could be adjusted after the change is made. (I.e., could the row# column be removed from the existing database.) If it can't removed after the fact, I need to stop people ASAP from entering any more cats so that they don't have to do it over again in a brand-new database. Yet I don't want to issue an announcement telling them to stop if it's not necessary, because that will put a chill on something that I finally drummed up enthusiasm for. Any quick info on this would be greatly appreciated, even if you don't actually make the change quickly. Thanks.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Hi All,

I've removed the Row # display in the database table view.

Cheers,
Mark

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:22 AM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Mark,

My group members are starting to like the database and enter their cats into it. If you're going to delete the row# column, or are considering deleting it, I would like to know whether an existing database could be adjusted after the change is made. (I.e., could the row# column be removed from the existing database.) If it can't removed after the fact, I need to stop people ASAP from entering any more cats so that they don't have to do it over again in a brand-new database. Yet I don't want to issue an announcement telling them to stop if it's not necessary, because that will put a chill on something that I finally drummed up enthusiasm for. Any quick info on this would be greatly appreciated, even if you don't actually make the change quickly. Thanks.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.



 

Mark,

I've removed the Row # display in the database table view.
Moot now, but I think the confusion was caused by referring to it as a "row number" when it does not behave like one - it would have been more clear if it had been referred to as an "id", "sequence" or "serial" number - something that implies a permanent connection between this number and the row's content. A Permalink number - perhaps even used as part of the URL for its edit row page.

I think this number, along with other metadata about the row (date created/last modified, author, maybe even row number) ought to be column types that the table author can choose to include or not.

Shal


 
Edited

I actually in retrospect agree with Shal and I do see one use for the row numbers (or ID numbers): the row number would be logged when a member edits it. Without an identifier, it may be hard for moderators to see when members are changing things. For example, someone may alter or delete another member's row, which would be forbidden in my group but not disallowed by the system. Could the row numbers be made visible to mods only (as an option)?

EDIT: In other words, what gets logged now when a member makes a change is "xyx modified row n in table pqr." If log entries are still made that way and the row number is invisible, the information is meaningless. While I would not want the row number to come back as a field visible to anyone who views the database (because of the gaps issue), allowing moderators to see row numbers would be helpful.

(Related to this: "modified a database row" is not currently one of the searchable actions in "member actions." Adding it, along with "added row n" and "deleted row n," would be helpful, as long as the row number is visible to the moderator. If invisible, then "added a row," "modified a row," and "deleted a row" would work.)

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

The log is still reporting that xyz member has modified "row n" and there are no more row numbers. So this is useless.:-) Can the row numbers be made visible to moderators at their option?
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:03 PM, J_catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
The log is still reporting that xyz member has modified "row n" and there are no more row numbers. So this is useless.:-) Can the row numbers be made visible to moderators at their option?

For now at least, I've added back the row numbers, but I'm calling them IDs.

Mark 


 

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:59 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I'm calling them IDs.

LOL. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. :-) Great solution. 
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.