are after triggers really after?

The other day when I was preparing for Microsoft exam 70-229 and I was reading up on triggers and I noticed that the documentation states that the default behavoir of triggers is to fire after the update\insert\delete transaction on the table that the trigger is created on. However, I have noticed that this is not totally accurate. If you setup a trace in profiler with the with all of the xxxstarted and xxxcompleted events for the T-SQL and stored procedure event classes you will notice that the originating transaction starts, then the trigger starts, then the trigger completes and then the originating transaction completes.

So after thinking about this for a while, I have to come to the conclusion that sql server must consider the trigger as part of the orignating transaction, and must therefore complete the trigger before the originating transaction commits. With this in mind, should'nt the default behavoir of triggers be considered "during" and not "after".I believe they fire after the update\insert\delete, but before the commit. They certainly occur during the transaction, because an error in a poorly written trigger can roll back the whole thing.|||I believe they fire after the update\insert\delete, but before the commit. They certainly occur during the transaction, because an error in a poorly written trigger can roll back the whole thing.

I think both statements are accurate. What differentiates an 'after' trigger from a before (or INSTEAD OF) trigger is that it (the INSTEAD OF trigger) executes before any transaction is opened on the underlying table/view. Perhaps a blinding statement of the obvious, but as often the case in semantics, the BEFORE trigger needed an 'opposite' and that opposite became 'after'.

Regards,

hmscott

Apply filter on dbcc log query

Hi,
I am reading online transaction log using dbcc log command.
But I don't want to read the whole online transaction log, because it will t
ake too long time. Is there any way through which I can filter the record an
d get lesser no. of records.
Is there any way through which I can use dbcc command directly in a query.
Or is there any undocumennted parameter that might passed to dcc log command
through which we can specify filter.
Thanks in advance
PushkarHi
dbcc log is undocumented, so all of it is unsupported.
AFAIK, the commands listed here are the only ones:
http://www.mssqlcity.com/Articles/U...CC.htm#part_2_8
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Pushkar" wrote:

> Hi,
> I am reading online transaction log using dbcc log command.
> But I don't want to read the whole online transaction log, because it will
take too long time. Is there any way through which I can filter the record
and get lesser no. of records.
> Is there any way through which I can use dbcc command directly in a query.
> Or is there any undocumennted parameter that might passed to dcc log comma
nd through which we can specify filter.
> Thanks in advance
> Pushkar
>|||> But I don't want to read the whole online transaction log, because it will
> take too long time.
Once again, I suggest a 3rd party tool. This operation is meant for
disaster recovery and occasional usage, not for every day activities where
performance is a concern. http://www.aspfaq.com/2449
It seems you've already spent enough time on this that you would have paid
for the license, if your opportunity cost is more than minimum wage...