Re: Oracle direction on triggers

On 24 Feb 2003 14:37:49 -0800, nsouto_at_optushome.com.au (Nuno Souto) wrote:

>Ed Stevens <nospam_at_noway.nohow> wrote in message news:<8qek5vs8psuifc57o8k14smlc8678f7eck_at_4ax.com>...
>
>
>> We settled on using a trigger and the OTG to keep a DB2 table
>> populated with changes from the Oracle table. The lead analyst on the
>> Oracle app got upset over this approach, claiming it would wreck
>> performance.
>
>He could be right there. How long does the populate take and
>how often is it executed? That might be his concern.
>What you might need is a scheduled job for this?
>

Questions he has been unable to answer. Just the statement "our transaction has to wait for the trigger to do its work." Well, in an absolute sense, that is true, but he has been unable to quantify that wait, which leads me to belive that it is negligible.

And as it turns out, the app that requested the trigger doesn't *really* need real-time updates to their table, so we are going to investigate a batch procedure.

>> He further stated that "Oracle apps have set a direction
>> of moving away from the use of triggers because of performace."
>
>Hehehe! That must be why most of the new OO-based stuff in Oracle
>has triggers and lots of PL/SQL code behind it!...
>That is a wrong statement.
>
>
>> Since
>> I don't keep up with Oracle Apps (we have none here) I couldn't refute
>> it, but it sure sounded specious to me.
>
>Same here.
>
>
>Cheers
>Nuno Souto
>nsouto_at_optusnet.com.au.nospam
Received on Tue Feb 25 2003 - 07:35:26 CST