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 |
|
mteriyaki
Starting Member
3 Posts |
 Posted - 2010-04-05 : 15:22:16
|
| Hello,I'm wondering exactly how useful the instead of trigger can be. From what I have read in my books (I have no real world experience sorry...) I was getting the impression that an instead of trigger is only really preferable to an after trigger when performing operations on views on multiple tables, like inserting or updating to several tables at once.Could you please give me some other examples as to when this might be a better option to an after trigger?~Thanks |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2010-04-05 : 23:57:14
|
| One other application can be where you need to enforce some business logic while performing DML operation on a table based on another db table. Like consider case where you've table1 in db1 and table2 in db2 and you want to enforce a foreign key between them. here you can use an instead of trigger to do this check before you perform the actual operation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SQL Server MVPhttp://visakhm.blogspot.com/ |
 |
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2010-04-06 : 02:36:26
|
| I have used them where we had TEXT columns (which are not available in AFTER triggers INSERTED & DELETED tables). Now fixed by using VARCHAR(MAX) instead of TEXT in SQL2005+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of trigger ~ uses?