Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
byomjan
Starting Member
34 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-12-22 : 12:48:34
|
| I have a large query which updates .We dont want to update unless untill the underlying value has really changed.update ECUSTOMERSET CUSTOMER_POINTS = POINTSFROM POINTS_LOOKUPWHERE CUSTOMER_POINTS<>POINTSThis is a simple update.requirement is to "Do not update" if there is no change in the values.Byomjan.... |
|
|
webfred
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
8781 Posts |
Posted - 2009-12-22 : 14:13:14
|
Yes - and what is your problem?
No, you're never too old to Yak'n'Roll if you're too young to die. |
 |
|
|
byomjan
Starting Member
34 Posts |
Posted - 2009-12-22 : 14:29:10
|
| i would to know if there is any other method..Its a huge sql and the "POINTS" is the result of an aggregation . ( not shown in the example though).In short , would like to know ,if there is any other methods. to compare the updating column before UPDATE. if its not changed, then do not update.Byomjan.... |
|
|
|
tosscrosby
Aged Yak Warrior
676 Posts |
Posted - 2009-12-22 : 15:54:33
|
| I'm on the train and don't have access to SQL to confirm this at the moment but I would think the where clause would actually slow the update process. If the value is the same, so what? You're really not changing anything on that record. If auditing changed records is involved I can anderstand not updating it but if not, again, I think the presence of the where clause may slow performance.Terry-- Procrastinate now! |
|
|
|
byomjan
Starting Member
34 Posts |
Posted - 2009-12-22 : 17:04:03
|
| yes exactly . this is for auditing purpose. If there is no change in the values that are being updated, then no need to update that. I have used "WHERE CUSTOMER_POINTS<>POINTS" . But its slow for huge data.Byomjan.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compare values before updating