Hello
theoretically you can have trigger on any statement, but I am not sure
about conformance with std. But, you can wrap TRUNCATE statement into
some procedure, and then call this procedure with some other actions.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
On 08/01/2008, Chris Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerardo Herzig) writes:
> Hi all. Acording to the docs, TRUNCATE will not fire a DELETE trigger
> on the table being truncated.
> There is a way to capture a TRUNCATE in any way?
I think there's some sort of "to do" on that...
It ought to be not *too* difficult (I imagine!) to
On 1/8/08, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm so rather than NOT IN ( .. LIMIT 50) would you suggest IN ( ...
> > OFFSET 50) like in Erik's example? Or something else entirely?
>
> Well, that would give you some gain. Think about it like this: once
> a given user's history records ar
On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:41 AM, Jamie Tufnell wrote:
On 1/8/08, codeWarrior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jamie:
I think you are probably having slowdown issues in your "DELETE
FROM WHERE
NOT IN SELECT ORDER BY DESCENDING" construct -- that seems a bit
convoluted
to me
Hmm so rather than
Hi all. Acording to the docs, TRUNCATE will not fire a DELETE trigger on
the table being truncated.
There is a way to capture a TRUNCATE in any way?
Thanks!
Gerardo
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
I think what you want is related to this post on how to create a FIFO
queue in Postgres:
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/archives/89-Implementing-a-queue-in-SQL-Postgres-version.html
The major difference is that you want a FIFO queue per user_id, so the
triggering code would
On 1/8/08, codeWarrior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jamie:
>
> I think you are probably having slowdown issues in your "DELETE FROM WHERE
> NOT IN SELECT ORDER BY DESCENDING" construct -- that seems a bit convoluted
> to me
Hmm so rather than NOT IN ( .. LIMIT 50) would you suggest IN ( ...
O
Jamie:
I think you are probably having slowdown issues in your "DELETE FROM WHERE
NOT IN SELECT ORDER BY DESCENDING" construct -- that seems a bit convoluted
to me
NOT IN is what is probably slowing you down the most
ALSO: It looks to me like you have a column named "timestamp' ???
Hi codeWarrior,
codeWarrior wrote:
> > For user_ids that have more than 50 rows, I want to keep the most
> > recent 50 and delete the rest.
> How about using a trigger to call a stored procedure ? [ON INSERT to
> user_item_history DO ...]
[snip]
Thanks for your input! I've implemented this but
On Jan 8, 2008, at 8:24 AM, Jamie Tufnell wrote:
Hi,
I have a table that stores per-user histories of recently viewed items
and I'd like to limit the amount of history items to <= 50 per user.
I'm considering doing this with a query run from cron every so often
but I'm not happy with what I've
How about using a trigger to call a stored procedure ? [ON INSERT to
user_item_history DO ...]
and have your stored procedure count the records for that user and delete
the oldest record if necessary...
IF (SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE user_id = NEW.user_id) >= 50 THEN
-- DELETE THE OLDES
Hi,
I have a table that stores per-user histories of recently viewed items
and I'd like to limit the amount of history items to <= 50 per user.
I'm considering doing this with a query run from cron every so often
but I'm not happy with what I've come up with so far, and since it's a
quite active t
12 matches
Mail list logo
