Bob: I've used count = insert in tables the size you're talking about and haven't heard anything about poor performance. However, probably only with 2 or 3 hitting the same table at the same time. Haven't been notified of any problems where it might be grabbing the wrong insert.
As for your #4, I have always done my count = insert immediately after the insert into that table, never farther down in the programming. Don't know that it wouldn't work later, but I have always selected the count immediately. Karen > I am planning to use the where statement : Where COUNT=INSERT > to obtain the value in a row that has just been inserted by the user. > > There will be 20+ users running this app continuously during the day and > often inserts will be made at the "same time". > > The table will grow to medium size, probably around 100,000 records > and remain at that size. > > I have used this syntax before, but not in conditions where the row count > will be as high, where there will be as many concurrent users inserting > records and where speed is of great importance. > > 1)Are there any considerations I should take using this syntax? > > 2)Does this use an index? > > 3)The speed to retrieve the value will need to be very fast and this will > > be running on a network. > > 4) I assume that the "Insert" condition is table specific. I.E. a user > inserts a row in table A and then a new record in table B. The > Where count = Insert for Table A would still be correct even after > Table B had an insert. > > > > Any thoughts as to the above? > > > > Thanks, > > -Bob > > > > > > > > >
