Comments
Sort by recent activity
Thanks for your post.
Filegroups are ignored by default with SQL Compare. Can you check if you have the option 'ignore > 'Filegroups, partition functions and partition schemes' enabled or not? / comments
Thanks for your post.
Filegroups are ignored by default with SQL Compare. Can you check if you have the option 'ignore > 'Filegroups, partition functions and partition schemes' enabled or not?
Yes, I tested it out and it seemed to work.
Let me know if you have any problems. / comments
Yes, I tested it out and it seemed to work.
Let me know if you have any problems.
Thanks for your post.
If you run the project in the UI, and then on the comparison results grid check the top level 'include in synchronization' tick-box, i.e. so everything gets included, and then save the project. It should include everything when you call the project from the command line.
I hope this helps. [/img] / comments
Thanks for your post.
If you run the project in the UI, and then on the comparison results grid check the top level 'include in synchronization' tick-box, i.e. so everything gets included, and then...
Thanks for your post.
I've logged this as a bug with SQL Prompt 5 (SP-4021), but it's curious why it marks the object as invalid.
It marks the object as invalid because it references dbo.[dtproperties], which doesn't seem to exist anywhere in the database. i.e. unlike all the other system and user objects, dbo.[dtproperties] isn't listed in sysobjects. / comments
Thanks for your post.
I've logged this as a bug with SQL Prompt 5 (SP-4021), but it's curious why it marks the object as invalid.
It marks the object as invalid because it references dbo.[dtpropert...
Sorry for the delay.
Are you able to see if the error occurs when registering the backup or the database?
It would also be useful if you could send me the application logs. I've sent instructions in another email. / comments
Sorry for the delay.
Are you able to see if the error occurs when registering the backup or the database?
It would also be useful if you could send me the application logs. I've sent instructions i...
Thanks for your post.
Have you tried using the project option 'use case sensitive object definition'? / comments
Thanks for your post.
Have you tried using the project option 'use case sensitive object definition'?
Were the scripts created by SQL Compare? / comments
Were the scripts created by SQL Compare?
Thanks for your post.
SQL Compare will only successfully compare SQL Scripts that were created by SQL Compare.
I believe SQL Compare is expecting to find the CREATE CERTIFICATE statements in their own file, and finding them as part of another object is causing the parsing error. / comments
Thanks for your post.
SQL Compare will only successfully compare SQL Scripts that were created by SQL Compare.
I believe SQL Compare is expecting to find the CREATE CERTIFICATE statements in their ...
Thanks for your post.
If the developer has inadvertently linked the database in 'shared' mode, then there will never be anything shown in the 'get latest' tab, as a shared database will always be on the latest version.
It might also be that they have the latest version, but have also made several changes to the local copy, which means it is no longer the same version as the repository. He can undo these changes using the undo function, but as he started out with the latest version, the 'get latest' won't show anything to get.
If neither of these apply, then something isn't right. Can you get them to relink and see if the problem remains? / comments
Thanks for your post.
If the developer has inadvertently linked the database in 'shared' mode, then there will never be anything shown in the 'get latest' tab, as a shared database will always be o...
Thanks for your post.
I'm afraid it's bad news for both questions.
1. There is no way to custom map differently named tables in SQL Compare. It's something we would like to add to the tool, but the problem is that it causes too many issues with dependencies. i.e. every reference to the custom mapped object would also have to be rewritten to the new name.
2. It's not possible to exclude specific columns as they're not treated as objects in their own right. When you compare a table, all columns will be considered. / comments
Thanks for your post.
I'm afraid it's bad news for both questions.
1. There is no way to custom map differently named tables in SQL Compare. It's something we would like to add to the tool, but the...