Comments
Sort by recent activity
Thanks for your post.
If you have uninstalled the server components from add/remove programs first, then you should be able to specify a new location when you reinstall.
However, I don't think this is made very easy with the cluster aware installation.
You should be able to force the installer to use a specified path if you launch the installer from the command line and specify the path using the /path argument. e.g.
SQBServerSetup_6.1.0.16.exe /PATH "E:\SQL Backup\Server Components"
I hope this helps. / comments
Thanks for your post.
If you have uninstalled the server components from add/remove programs first, then you should be able to specify a new location when you reinstall.
However, I don't think this...
Thanks for your suggestion.
I've logged this in our system as a feature request. It will now be looked at by the product managers and will be considered for a future version.
For your reference the feature tracking code is SB-4301. / comments
Thanks for your suggestion.
I've logged this in our system as a feature request. It will now be looked at by the product managers and will be considered for a future version.
For your reference the...
I wanted to update thread this in case anybody else gets this error.
In this particular case, it seems that it was down to one of the database roles being corrupt.
Dropping and recreating the role fixed the issue. / comments
I wanted to update thread this in case anybody else gets this error.
In this particular case, it seems that it was down to one of the database roles being corrupt.
Dropping and recreating the role ...
We worked on this issue through a private support ticket, here was the conclusion.
It seems that SQL Data Compare is designed to read uncommitted transactions to increase concurrency. When we issue the select statement, we do it with NOLOCK. This is the information from BOL: "Specifies that dirty reads are allowed. This means that no shared locks are issued and no exclusive locks are honored. Allowing dirty reads can result in higher concurrency, but at the cost of lower consistency. If READUNCOMMITTED is specified, it is possible to read an uncommitted transaction or to read a set of pages rolled back in the middle of the read; therefore, error messages may result. For more information about isolation levels, see SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL. "
I think this could be why there is a discrepancy between your SQL Query, and what SQL Data Compare reports.
I have logged a feature request to add an extra option to force SQL Data Compare to only consider committed transactions. The feature tracking code for this is SDC-1026. / comments
We worked on this issue through a private support ticket, here was the conclusion.
It seems that SQL Data Compare is designed to read uncommitted transactions to increase concurrency. When we issue...
Thanks for your post.
The where clause is used to filter the comparison, so if you use a where clause to only include rows that are 'active', then the 'non-active' rows will not be considered.
When you set up the where clause, you could set it to only filter the source database. This will mean than any 'active' rows in the source will be paired with the matching row in the target, regardless of if it is active or not.
I hope this helps. / comments
Thanks for your post.
The where clause is used to filter the comparison, so if you use a where clause to only include rows that are 'active', then the 'non-active' rows will not be considered.
When...
Thanks for your post.
You could try increasing the connection timeout value.
You can do this by manually amending the connection string for the server. e.g. MyServer\MyInstance;connection timeout = 300 (for 300 seconds).
If this doesn't help, can you post the exact error message you get during the sync? / comments
Thanks for your post.
You could try increasing the connection timeout value.
You can do this by manually amending the connection string for the server. e.g. MyServer\MyInstance;connection timeout =...
Thanks for your post.
This isn't currently possible with SQL Compare 8.0, but I can see why you would want to do this.
We have a similar feature request to this already open, so I have added your suggestion to it. Once it has been reviewed again, we should be able to tell you if/when it will be implemented in a future version.
For your reference, the feature tracking code is SC-2355. / comments
Thanks for your post.
This isn't currently possible with SQL Compare 8.0, but I can see why you would want to do this.
We have a similar feature request to this already open, so I have added your s...
Thanks for your post.
You can add a more complex where clause to make sure the sync takes into account the other referenced tables. For example, using a nested select, e.g.
id in (select id from othertable)
As long as the where clause is valid and can be parsed by SQL Server, you can use it as a filter in SQL Data Compare.
This will be the same with the SDK.
SQL Prompt is a code completion tool, so I'm not sure how that would help with automation in the future.
I hope this is helpful. / comments
Thanks for your post.
You can add a more complex where clause to make sure the sync takes into account the other referenced tables. For example, using a nested select, e.g.
id in (select id from ot...
Thanks for your post.
Does the table have a primary key, unique index or unique constraint?
If it doesn't, then SQL Data Compare cannot automatically map the tables, so you will need to manually choose a comparison key for this table.
I hope this helps. / comments
Thanks for your post.
Does the table have a primary key, unique index or unique constraint?
If it doesn't, then SQL Data Compare cannot automatically map the tables, so you will need to manually ch...
I worked on this with the user through a private support ticket.
The issue may have been a one-off, as it doesn't seem to be reproduceable.
He will let us know if it happens again. / comments
I worked on this with the user through a private support ticket.
The issue may have been a one-off, as it doesn't seem to be reproduceable.
He will let us know if it happens again.