Re: do triggers slow updates down severly

I disagree that a trigger is the most effective method to put a timestamp on a record.

If you had a table (test) with (modified_time, value, date_time) and the column modified_time is subject column, use sysdate to get the answer you need

update test set modified_time = sysdate ...

Inserts into test (modified_time, value, date_time) values (sysdate, 1234, TO_DATE(10/13/2002, "MM/DD/YYYY"); The date will default to the NLS setting in the pfile or else you will need to format sysdate into your desired form.

Bryan Baker

"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
Received on Mon Oct 14 2002 - 02:40:55 CEST