Dave wrote:
> <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)
If that is all you meant then I agree. But that is hardly what you wrote.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)
Received on Sat Mar 26 2005 - 14:36:12 CST
