Re: update with no changes

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:03 AM Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:

> Because it takes resources to determine that nothing changed. If you want
>> to opt-in into that there is even an extension trigger that makes doing so
>> fairly simple. But it's off by default because the typical case is that
>> people don't frequently perform no-op updates so why eat the expense.
>>
> But it takes resources for other operations, right ?
> I think this is not unusual. If an user double click on a grid, just sees
> a record and clicks ok to save, probably that application calls an update
> instead of seeing if some field were changed before that.
>
>
This has been the documented behavior for decades. I suggest you research
prior discussions on the topic if you need more than what has been
provided. You'd need to bring up some novel points about why a change here
would be overall beneficial to get any interest, at least from me, in
discussing the topic further.

I get the idea of letting the server centralize logic like this - but
frankly if the application is choosing to send all that data across the
wire just to have the server throw it away the application is wasting
network I/O. If it does manage its resources carefully then the server
will never even see an update and its behavior here becomes moot.

David J.