E9.2 Can ITM be substituted for LITM in code fetches and SQL?

Hi,

I've seen this so commonly that I am already on the doubt of it being actually an issue.

Some of the developments and folks that I have worked with widely use field 2nd Item Number (LITM) as the only reference, to the point of excluding elements like ITM and KIT from custom tables. I've always thought that, from an entirely technical perspective, the norm is supposed to be the usage of ITM, as it is the primary key in many standard tables.

Is there any documentation that indicates that ITM is expected to be used in the backend instead of LITM for code programming (fetches, SQL construction, &c)?
Or is it irrelevant?
 

DSauve

Legendary Poster
I have often included both - LITM for display purposes and ITM for SQL select statements. Many tables only use ITM and/or only have indexes based on ITM.
 

Gomer79

Well Known Member
Hi,

I've seen this so commonly that I am already on the doubt of it being actually an issue.

Some of the developments and folks that I have worked with widely use field 2nd Item Number (LITM) as the only reference, to the point of excluding elements like ITM and KIT from custom tables. I've always thought that, from an entirely technical perspective, the norm is supposed to be the usage of ITM, as it is the primary key in many standard tables.

Is there any documentation that indicates that ITM is expected to be used in the backend instead of LITM for code programming (fetches, SQL construction, &c)?
Or is it irrelevant?
While I am not aware of any formal documentation I would agree with @DSauve that you would be best to include ITM as well as some tables only use ITM and also as you pointed out it is the primary key part of the key in many places.
 
Top