Triggers

Question

Triggers

Viewing 8 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 1

I think the correct answer (like the max number of indexes per table) is 'Too Many'

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Revenant SSC-Forever Points: 42467 More actions · Answer 2

GilaMonster (12/22/2011)
I think the correct answer (like the max number of indexes per table) is 'Too Many'

How many is 'too many'? 🙂

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 3

Revenant (12/22/2011)
GilaMonster (12/22/2011)
I think the correct answer (like the max number of indexes per table) is 'Too Many'
How many is 'too many'? 🙂

One more than 'just right'. 😀

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150467 More actions · Answer 4

Happy to have chosen the wrong answer. 🙂

32 seems much more reasonable anyway.

Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi

SQLRNNR SSC Guru Points: 281334 More actions · Answer 5

Thanks for the question.

Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events

OzYbOi d(-_-)b SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4054 More actions · Answer 6

thanks for the question... certainly agree that you probably don't want to push things to those limits tho! 🙂

TomThomson SSC Guru Points: 104773 More actions · Answer 7

SQL Kiwi (12/22/2011)
Happy to have chosen the wrong answer. 🙂
32 seems much more reasonable anyway.

Trouble with choosing a number for limits like this one is that you have only three possibilities: you can choose (1) a number that is high enough to be silly (32 probably qualifies), (2) a number that is low enough that it will inconvenience someone (24 probably qualifies), or (3) choose not to have an individual limit for this thing but let it share in some great big pool where the number it uses is just noise level. Trying to pick something high enough that fewer than 1 person in 3 will regard it as falling into (2) at the same time as being low enough that fewer than 1 in 3 will regard it as falling into (1) is futile, so the easy way out is to go for option (3).

I don't know whether that's the logic MS used when deciding not to have an individual limit for triggers per table.

Tom

Britt Cluff SSCertifiable Points: 5083 More actions · Answer 8

Thanks for the question.

http://brittcluff.blogspot.com/