Re: Update on tables when the row doesn't change

From: Sebastian Böck <sebastianboeck(at)freenet(dot)de>
To: Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <systemguards(at)gmail(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Update on tables when the row doesn't change
Date: 2005-05-25 08:49:02
Message-ID: 42943BFE.304@freenet.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> On 5/24/05, Sebastian Böck <sebastianboeck(at)freenet(dot)de> wrote:
>
>>/* 3rd way of separating updates
>> con: unnecessary updates on tables
>> pro: view gets evaluated only 1 time
>>
>> Not adressing the problem of unnecessary updates, but the view
>> gets only evaluated one time.
>>
>>*/
>>
>>CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION upd (view_test) RETURNS VOID AS $$
>> DECLARE
>> NEW ALIAS FOR $1;
>> BEGIN
>> RAISE NOTICE 'UPDATE';
>> UPDATE test SET test = NEW.test WHERE id = OLD.id;
>> UPDATE join1 SET text1 = NEW.text1 WHERE id = OLD.id;
>> UPDATE join2 SET text2 = NEW.text2 WHERE id = OLD.id;
>> UPDATE join3 SET text3 = NEW.text3 WHERE id = OLD.id;
>> RETURN;
>> END;
>>$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
>
>
> Control question, I didn't check it, but would it be enough to change from:
> UPDATE join1 SET text1 = NEW.text1 WHERE id = OLD.id;
> to:
> UPDATE join1 SET text1 = NEW.text1 WHERE id = OLD.id AND text1 <> NEW.text1?
>
> ... I may be wrong. :)

Yes, thats more elegant then my other (4th) solution.
Was late yesterday evening ;)

Thanks

Sebastian

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2005-05-25 08:50:36 Re: postmaster fails to start
Previous Message Dweck Nir 2005-05-25 08:08:54 postmaster fails to start