On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:59 +0530, NikhilS wrote:
> Hi,
>         > The only problem I have with this is that the shops I know
>         with big
>         > partitioned tables favor triggers over rules for both
>         performance reason and 
>         > a cleaner implementation.  Even with automated rule creation
>         this isnt going
>         > to change afaics... not to mention we already create our
>         rules & triggers
>         > automatically, so really this just isn't exciting to me
>         (though it may make 
>         > it easier for people getting in on the ground floor)
>         I second this. The trigger route is much more maintainable
>         than the rule
>         route. IMO what really needs to happen is something more low
>         level where
>         there are no DBA visible changes. Triggers also have overhead,
>         it would
>         be nice to get a little more bare metal with this.
> I had raised this issue about rules/triggers back then and the
> responses seemed to be evenly split as to which ones to use. 

Presumably your implementation already uses Triggers for INSERTs though,
so why not use triggers for everything?

  Simon Riggs             
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to