On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > I was talking with Jonathan Gennick about the INS/UPD/DEL RETURNING stuff, > and he recommended looking into the way DB2 handles similar functionality. > After looking into it a bit, it's more inline with what Tom's suggestion was > regarding a query from the operation rather than returning the values in the > manner currently required. > > Here's DB2's syntax... does anyone have any familiarity with it? > > Simply put, it's sort-of like: > > SELECT * FROM (FINAL | NEW | OLD) TABLE (INSERT | UPDATE | DELETE) > > I'd like to hear from anyone that's used it to see if it really is better... > logically it seems nicer, but I've never used it.
It works well for cases where you want to pass the result of an insert/delete/update to another query. There was a paper on IBM developer works on how they got the 7 or so queries in an order transaction in TPC-C down to 3 queries and increased throughput impressively. This doesn't solve the generated keys problem that the Java and probably .NET interfaces have. Mind, RETURNING doesn't solve anything either. I prefer this syntax to RETURNING. Then again, Oracle is a bigger target than DB2 so... I'm not sure. Thanks, Gavin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
