Re: I'm not Trigger happy :-)
From: Arnie Rowland (arnie_at_1568.com)
Date: 11/01/04
- Next message: Steve Kass: "Re: Stored Procedure Problem"
- Previous message: sp_OAMethod usage: "sp_OAMethod usage (Problem in Stored procedure)"
- In reply to: Hari Prasad: "Re: I'm not Trigger happy :-)"
- Next in thread: Vishal Parkar: "Re: I'm not Trigger happy :-)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:43:51 -0800
Unless you need to specifically have the updates be in sequential order, I
would recommend using a 'timestamp' field in the table. The timestamp
datatype is automatically incremented (but not necessarily sequentially)
every time there is a change to any field in the row.
If you must have sequential numbering on the updates, as hari indicated, use
a join with the inserted table. (See book on line for more details.)
Regards,
-- Arnie Rowland "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin
- Next message: Steve Kass: "Re: Stored Procedure Problem"
- Previous message: sp_OAMethod usage: "sp_OAMethod usage (Problem in Stored procedure)"
- In reply to: Hari Prasad: "Re: I'm not Trigger happy :-)"
- Next in thread: Vishal Parkar: "Re: I'm not Trigger happy :-)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
