Well, for raw speed the kludgy i-type index method is faster, however, for reliability and the ability to know when the trigger was fired (before/after, update/insert/delete) you will probably need to use the file trigger mechanism. As someone raised in an issue recently, triggers run in a transaction (which of course, doesn't allow you to run the debugger through it). However, it should be simple enough to create a test interface for your trigger program before you apply it to the file. Personally, I think there are definite advantages to running triggers within a transaction (opposed to i-type updates that IIRC won't allow it). One being that any associated updates/deletes are managed as a single update, so all updates are synchronised and/or if your trigger decides that the update can't or shouldn't be happening, then it can roll back all changes automatically via the transaction mechanism. Stuart.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "Robin Stanley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 10:02 To: <[email protected]> Subject: [U2] Real Trigger vs. Kludgy Trigger via an Index Before UV supported real file triggers, we used a kludgy way of doing it by creating an index on an i-descriptor dictionary, which then called a BASIC program to do our 'trigger stuff'. Does anyone have any input on what would now be faster? The real trigger or the 'index' trigger? I'm probably being lazy, because I know how to setup the 'index' trigger, but haven't yet ever tried the 'real' trigger. It would be worth it if I thought performance would be significantly better. Thanks. Robin Stanley Paciolan, Inc ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
