Re: Default column value of MAX +1 of column - possible in Oracle 9i?

<fitzjarrell_at_cox.net> wrote in message
news:1111708769.142447.82560_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave wrote:
>> "hpuxrac" <johnbhurley_at_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:1111701266.339020.78570_at_o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > snip
>> >
>> >> Triggers are evil. They don't scale well and they make application
>> >> changes more awkward, time-consuming and expensive.
>> >
>> > Many of us are running with a whole bunch of insert triggers that
>> > supply a sequence value to generate unique row.
>> >
>> > This is very very very common.
>> >
>>
>> whch doesnt make it right or best practise
>
> I see no evidence in your post explaining why triggers are 'evil'.
> What, exactly, makse such triggers 'wrong'? This question has been
> asked in many forms in this thread and not one of the naysayers can
> prove the rhetoric to which they cling.
>
> Provide statistical evidence you are 'right' and we are 'wrong', or
> learn a different tune.
>
>
> David Fitzjarrell
>

im not the one that says triggers are evil.. My point was that using them for generating an id for a unique row is not as good as doing it in the insert statement (which is what I was replying to) Received on Sat Mar 26 2005 - 13:31:09 CST