Re: Slow Retrieval in Forms Multi-Block

There is no cursor in the POST_QUERY trigger. I have balked on an updateable view because of the many tables involved, as well as the number of lookup pointers to reference tables. Are updateable views simpler and more efficient than I was lead to believe???

Ed

Paul Dorsey wrote:

> Use an updatable view.
> There is NO reason to EVER have a cursor in a post query trigger.
>
> In any case, you should first determine what is causing your bottleneck.
> Is it the post query triggers? Is it the child blocks? You can't fix your
> problem unless you know what it is.
>
> --
> Paul Dorsey
> Dulcian, Inc.
> www.dulcian.com
> 212 595 7223
> Ed Jennings wrote in message <3671CD09.661E60E0_at_mindspring.com>...
> >I have a multi-block Form that contains relationships from the primary
> >block to four other blocks. In addition, there are three data elements
> >in the primary block that are pointers to a reference table. I use a
> >POST-QUERY trigger to populate non-database fields with the actual
> >values from the reference table, so that the display has more meaning to
> >the users.
> >
> >I don't use a view because I need control of the INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE
> >processes. When the users run a query, the first rows come back very
> >quickly (1-5 seconds) depending on selection criteria. However, the
> >users wanted a way to quickly traverse to the last record in the
> >result. I therefore provided a button that executes the LAST_RECORD
> >built-in. When the result set is of moderate size, 300-800 records, it
> >takes upward of 90 seconds to retrive all of the records. Once cached
> >on the client, they can instantly travers back and forth. But the wait
> >up front is unacceptable. I have played with settings for 'QUERY ARRAY
> >SIZE' and 'NUMBER OF RECORDS BUFFERED' without any improvement. I've
> >heard that PRE-QUERY & POST-QUERY triggers are slow, but this is
> >ridiculous. I am using array-processing, and it slows down even further
> >when I turn it off, so I know the array processing is having a positive
> >affect, just not enough.
> >
> >Do I have a design flaw? Is there a better way to display a primary
> >table, 5 related tables, and a reference table more efficiently? I
> >don't want to have to use of view because of the update headaches? Any
> >suggestions????????
> >
> >Ed Jennings
> >--
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >jenningse_at_mindspring.com
> >
> >

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jenningse_at_mindspring.com

"The opinions expressed here are my own, not those of DOMAIN technologies"