Re: Practical question.

On 3/17/07, louis gonzales <gonzales(at)linuxlouis(dot)net> wrote:
> Statement-level triggers follow simple visibility rules: none of the changes
> made by a statement are visible to statement-level triggers that are invoked
> before the statement, whereas all modifications are visible to
> statement-level after triggers.

you are misunderstanding manual. by "change visible" it means -
content of the table. not the tuples updates/modified.

> The data change (insertion, update, or deletion) causing the trigger to fire
> is naturally not visible to SQL commands executed in a row-level before
> trigger, because it hasn't happened yet.

as i mentioned - you do not understand the text correctly. you have
access to change data as NEW.* and OLD.* records. and it works in both
"before" and "after" triggers.

> However, SQL commands executed in a row-level before trigger will see the
> effects of data changes for rows previously processed in the same outer
> command. This requires caution, since the ordering of these change events is
> not in general predictable; a SQL command that affects multiple rows may
> visit the rows in any order.

statement-level trigger sees the changes *if* it calls select * from
table. but it doesn't mean you have the ability to tell which record
were added/modified. as you dont. know.

> When a row-level after trigger is fired, all data changes made by the outer
> command are already complete, and are visible to the invoked trigger
> function.

read comment above.

> 2) Seeing as you have no idea - not attacking, stating fact - on
> the rationale behind the "insert statement-level" to create 1-to-1 table for
> each statement-level

seeing as you have problems with understanding simple english text -
not attacking, stating fact - please check the docs, and do some tests
yourself before you will state this kind of "facts".

> insert, I'd say your presumption is unfounded. If you have some benchmark
> data, which support why/how to quantify, 50K records in a single table, all
> of which would have N number of associated records in another table, would
> out perform 50K records in a single table referencing dedicated 'small'
> tables, please do share.

no, i dont have such benchmarks as i think it is obvious that having
50k tables will kill any kind of performance and/or simplicity of
writing queries.

if you dont belive me - fine, your database, your problems. just test
the "visibility" thing in triggers (especially in case of multi-row
inserts and updates).

best regards,

depesz