From: | Bob Lunney <bob_lunney(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, DM <dm(dot)aeqa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Triggers or code? |
Date: | 2010-08-25 14:30:31 |
Message-ID: | 9650.2310.qm@web39702.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
That depends on your application's requirements. If a transaction on table X fails, do you still want the history (noting the failure)? If so, go with embedding the code in your script. If you only want history for successful transactions, a trigger will take care of that for you automatically.
Bob Lunney
--- On Mon, 8/23/10, DM <dm(dot)aeqa(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
From: DM <dm(dot)aeqa(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: [PERFORM] Triggers or code?
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 2:42 PM
Hello There,
I have a table x and a history table x_hist, whats the best way to update the history table.
should i need to use triggers or embed a code in my script to update the history table?
what is the performance impact of a trigger versus embedding the code in the script?
thanks for your time.
- Deepak
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bob Branch | 2010-08-25 15:58:16 | New servers, need suggestions for sensible tuning settings |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-08-25 06:58:59 | Re: Are Indices automatically generated for primary keys? |