On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:48:36AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Scott,
>
> > Well, you can always use the trick of putting an on insert / delete
> > trigger on the table that maintains a single row table with the current
> > count. That way, whenever a row is added or removed, the count is
> BTW, I tested this for a client. I found the performance penalty
> on inserts and updates to be:
[. . .]
> Please note that the effective performance penalty on inserts and
> updates was dramatically higher for large batches of updates than
> for small ones.
Presumably the problem was to do with contention? This is why I
don't really like the "update one row" approach for this sort of
thing.
But you _could_ write a trigger which inserts into a "staging" table,
and write a little daemon which only updates the count table with the
data from the staging table. It's a mighty ugly hack, but it ought
to work.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
