September 22, 2005 at 9:33 am
No new posts notification recently. Just know lot of new posts on this topic.
Yes, neoID is right a sql job is not re-entrant. However it does not affect the solution suggested. The triggger does not call a predefiend job. The solution is to create a one time job each time in the trigger and start it. So the calling client is released. The jobs should have unique names to avoid overwriting. It's easy to have some name convention for the job.
Not sure about the updating rate on the table. This solution is not for heavy updating load becuase creating and starting a job is expensive. It's just a possible way to asynchronously process data.
September 23, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I am against using system tables for those purposes. Creating jobs dynamically and then firing them is not only expensive in resources but also a misuse IN MY OPINION of those tables. I think of system tables as stable fairly static and not high performance tables. Besides it will imply that you have to grant access to MSDB to that user (antother no-no).
Cheers!
* Noel
Viewing 2 posts - 16 through 16 (of 16 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply