It should be updated as soon as the other update takes place.
My concern is that when a row is updated, the trigger fires, performing an update. Would that cause the trigger to fire again?
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsWould it be bad practice to have a trigger that fires on insert or update that updates a field based on the value of another field. For example, table contains boolean CheckedOut , datetime field DTCheckedOut. Trigger would set CheckedOut = 1 where DTCheckedOut is not null. Also, would it be advisable to write the trigger so that only the updated rows are updated?
Thanks
As
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: chapmandewPosted on 2008-04-25 at 10:29:45ID: 21441554
Not necessarily bad practice, but remember that the tranactions occurs in the scope of the original transaction. Does it need to be updated as soon as the other update takes place?