> A> Arno Brinkman wrote:
> >> When showing the "INSERT OR UPDATE" it was clear for both that
> >> it will perform first INSERT else UPDATE, because
> >> internally it first performs UPDATE and then INSERT when needed
> >> we suggest to use "UPDATE OR INSERT".
> >>
> A> Yes, if it is to be changed, the better name is "UPDATE OR INSERT".
>
> Not necessarily. It could be interpreted as "INSERT OR, if the record
> already exists, UPDATE it". It is actually what I think when reading
> "INSERT OR UPDATE". I don't think at the temporal sequence of events.

Lads, don't overdo it, or we might end up with:

INSERT INTO IF EXISTS UPDATE ....

:-)

> What it does internally shouldn't necessarily be reflected in the
> verb's name, also because Fb might want to be able to change the
> internals in the future (say, performing an insert and trap the
> exception, or performing an existence check first).
>
> The rationale behind INSERT OR UPDATE (in this order) is that the main
> operation, or the most common case, comes first. Then the exceptions.
> It is clear that the intent of the operation is to make sure a
> particular record exists (*) and contains current values, that's why
> INSERT looks more preminent than UPDATE. At least IMHO.
>
> (*) which suggests that ENSURE is also a good candidate.

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, NexusDB, Oracle &
MS SQL Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
My thoughts:
http://blog.upscene.com/martijn/
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com