"parchk" <parchk@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46E595BB-5018-4AA2-8F1C-04E73DAEC0F5@microsoft.com...
> On each of our 40 SQL Server instances (members) an internal management
> database has been created to collect various information about each
> server.
> We want to push all of the member server information to a single "master"
> database on one of these server instances for reporting purposes. My
> question is how to design the tables so that the primary keys do not
> conflict
> with each other when pushed to the "master" server instance. If I
> consider
> using Identity columns, unless I use a predefined range of values on each
> server, I am unsure whether it is possible to create a a series of
> starting
> values and increments that as additional servers are added would not
> eventually create conflicts or other issues. Is the only other option to
> define the primary keys as data type uniqueidentifer? Thanks in advance.

"José Araujo" wrote:

> While identity columns would work (we use them intensively) I would
> recommend uniqueidentifier.
>
> It is way more straight-forward and you avoid the possible issues you might
> have with identity ranges. Identity ranges work but it is yet another thing
> you have to care about.
>
> Unless you have a compelling reason for not using uniqueidentifiers I would
> stick to them.
>
> José Araujo.
>
>
>
> "parchk" <parchk@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46E595BB-5018-4AA2-8F1C-04E73DAEC0F5@microsoft.com...
> > On each of our 40 SQL Server instances (members) an internal management
> > database has been created to collect various information about each
> > server.
> > We want to push all of the member server information to a single "master"
> > database on one of these server instances for reporting purposes. My
> > question is how to design the tables so that the primary keys do not
> > conflict
> > with each other when pushed to the "master" server instance. If I
> > consider
> > using Identity columns, unless I use a predefined range of values on each
> > server, I am unsure whether it is possible to create a a series of
> > starting
> > values and increments that as additional servers are added would not
> > eventually create conflicts or other issues. Is the only other option to
> > define the primary keys as data type uniqueidentifer? Thanks in advance.
>
>