Re: do triggers slow updates down severly

Russell Wolfe <wolfer_at_peak.org> wrote in message news:<tngbqug225eposde89iu1op6e5r19507pu_at_4ax.com>...
> On 10 Oct 2002 07:41:04 -0700, jack.beukering_at_services.fujitsu.com
> (jack) wrote:
>
> >I want to use update trigger to record the timestamp, so I know the
> >mutation dates of records. Inserts can be handled by a default
> >declaration of the timestamp column.
> >My question is, does the performance of batch-jobs suffers serverly at
> >e.g. 10.000 records or do you start to notice it at 100.000 records?
> >
> >Doe somebody has any experience with such a case?
> >
> >Jack
>
> Of all the ways to timestamp a record, among many other things, a
> trigger is the most efficient method. A trigger isn't free, but I
> doubt that you'll ever notice 'severe' performance degradation.
> IMHO, such a timestamp is a minimal requirement in a good database
> design. You might check out Oracle's auditing features for ways to
> maintain a more complete change history.
>
> rww
> Russ Wolfe
> wolfer_at_peak.org

Hi,

I guess the best way is to benchmark.
I also agree that you may not notice a significant difference.

Regards
Kapil Received on Fri Oct 11 2002 - 11:53:44 CEST