At 13:22 23/11/00 +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
>We lack a syntax that would enable us to write an on update/delete do
instead rule
>that would efficiently map an update/delete to a table that is referenced
by a view.
>
>Currently the only rule you can implement is one that uses a primary key.
>This has the disadvantage of needing a self join to find the appropriate
rows.
>

One of the concepts used in other DBs is to have views with row
OIDs/DBKeys: ie. views that have one primary table (but maybe have column
selects, calculations and/or function calls) can still have a real row
underlying each row. This then allows insert, update & delete to work more
easily. Doesn't really help now, but it might be useful in a future release.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner                    |     __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd.   |----/       -  \
(A.B.N. 75 008 659 498)          |          /(@)   ______---_
Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81         |                 _________  \
Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82         |                 ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au          |                /           \|
                                 |    --________--
PGP key available upon request,  |  /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371   |/

Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:38:27 +1100
Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Re: deficiency on delete and update instead rules
  for views