> Quincey Koziol <koziol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I was planning on including a hidden field to disambiguate objects that
> > were created at the same time, so this wouldn't happen. Since there's no
> > advantage to using a creation order field instead of using the creation time
> > when determining the n'th object inserted into a group (when factoring
> > deleted
> > objects into the equation), I'm still leaning toward using a time instead
> > of an
> > index for this purpose. Using the time provides the same functionality and
> > adds information as well.
> >
> > I'm still somewhat split on the issue however and would welcome
> > persuasive
> > arguments in favor of one mechanism or the other. :-) I'm also thinking
> > about
> > including both fields (creation order and creation time) and allowing users
> > to
> > create an index on either, to suit their particular needs...
>
> Quincey,
>
> What happens is a machine with an inaccurate time adds a variable to a
> dataset?
It'll get the "wrong" creation time and inserted in the index
appropriately, as you'd expect. I don't think this is a major problem though,
because I don't think that most files will get edited on multiple machines in
a very short timeframe.
Quincey
