Comments
Sort by recent activity
Hi,
Sorry you're seeing this - it's not something we've seen before, but searching around, it looks like you've hit this problem: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948176. Unfortunately it seems like you need to contact Microsoft in order to obtain the hotfix; there isn't a download link for it that I can see.
The article does mention that it will be fixed in the "next service pack" of the .NET framework - do you have .NET 2.0 SP1 installed? If not, maybe installing that will help.
[Edit: I've raised this in our bug tracking system (SE-600), so hopefully the next release should contain a fix for this as well]
Hope that helps,
Robert / comments
Hi,
Sorry you're seeing this - it's not something we've seen before, but searching around, it looks like you've hit this problem: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/948176. Unfortunately it seems like...
Hi,
If you run:
sqldatacompare.exe /help /verbose
The first set of documentation you get details the various exit codes.
Hope that helps,
Robert / comments
Hi,
If you run:
sqldatacompare.exe /help /verbose
The first set of documentation you get details the various exit codes.
Hope that helps,
Robert
Hi,
Differential backups are based on the last full backup made, whether or not it's scheduled or manual, so in this case you'd need Tuesday's full backup.
If you want to avoid this happening (that is, keep Wednesday's diff relative to Sunday's full backup), and you're running SQL Server 2005, you can use the COPY_ONLY parameter with either the extended stored procedure or command line when making your manual backup. This behaves in the same way as the native SQL Server backup's COPY_ONLY parameter - for more details, have a look at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191495.aspx.
Hope that helps,
Robert / comments
Hi,
Differential backups are based on the last full backup made, whether or not it's scheduled or manual, so in this case you'd need Tuesday's full backup.
If you want to avoid this happening (that...
Hi,
SQL Data Compare Pro include the command line version of the application, which can be used in conjunction with a scheduled task. The Standard edition only comes with the graphical user interface.
If you're looking to upgrade from Standard to Pro, please contact one of our sales team (sales@red-gate.com), who should be able to give you a quote.
Hope that helps,
Robert / comments
Hi,
SQL Data Compare Pro include the command line version of the application, which can be used in conjunction with a scheduled task. The Standard edition only comes with the graphical user interfa...
Yup, agreed - it should show up in the third even if not in the second.
If you've got a couple of backups that exhibit the problem, and you're able to send them to us, I can try and see what's going on. Let me know if so and I'll arrange some means of you getting them to us.
Thanks,
Robert / comments
Yup, agreed - it should show up in the third even if not in the second.
If you've got a couple of backups that exhibit the problem, and you're able to send them to us, I can try and see what's goin...
True - but if they created it before the first, then updated during the second, it could appear as the same in both backups, if that makes sense. Or, in a truly terrible diagram:
- Insert record
- Perform backup 1
- .... one day later...
- Start backup 2
- Update record with previous day's data
- Backup 2 completes
As a first step, I'd check to see if your backups are running at the same time as the insert / update - if not, then we can rule it out as a possible cause. / comments
True - but if they created it before the first, then updated during the second, it could appear as the same in both backups, if that makes sense. Or, in a truly terrible diagram:
- Insert record
- ...
Hi,
The only possibility I can think of at the moment is that the missing record is getting inserted or updated during the time the backup happens. If this happens, SQL Server appends a mini transaction log backup to the full backup with any changes that happen during the backup. SQL Data Compare doesn't currently use this, so there's a chance that data changing during the backup may be missed in a comparison. / comments
Hi,
The only possibility I can think of at the moment is that the missing record is getting inserted or updated during the time the backup happens. If this happens, SQL Server appends a mini transa...
Hi,
I suspect - and this is only really a guess - that what's happening is the first time you're accessing a field on that row, it's actually fetching the entire row back from the server, since it's generally the case that that isn't much more expensive than just fetching a single column. That means that your first column access takes a lot longer than the second one (which is already actually ready for use by that point).
Hope that helps,
Robert / comments
Hi,
I suspect - and this is only really a guess - that what's happening is the first time you're accessing a field on that row, it's actually fetching the entire row back from the server, since it'...
If I remember correctly, we removed the "objects excluded from comparison" section in version 6 of Data Compare - the thinking was that if you'd manually excluded them from your comparison, there wasn't any point taking up valuable screen space telling you about them.
I can't think instantly of any reason why we should be comparing a table that was deselected - I'll check this out in more detail next week, but I think anything you exclude should just be ignored.
Hope that helps,
Robert / comments
If I remember correctly, we removed the "objects excluded from comparison" section in version 6 of Data Compare - the thinking was that if you'd manually excluded them from your comparison, there w...
Hi Glen,
Thanks for those details - exactly what I was after :-).
We *really* shouldn't be out of memory'ing on something of that size - our benchmark databases go into the tens or hundreds of thousands of tables for schema tests, and into hundreds of GB for data size.
When you get the OutOfMemory, do you get a stack trace or any more details? If so, would you mind posting that so I can see if I can tell where exactly it's going wrong? Unfortunately I suspect however that you're seeing this in the "progress dialog" box, where you won't get any more info. If I remember correctly, there is a way of getting the stack trace in this situation, but I don't recall how at the moment - I'll find out when I get back into the office on Monday.
Something to try: can you successfully compare the two databases' schemas using SQL Compare? If so, would you be happy to send me a copy of the schema by email? (You can use SQL Compare to create a snapshot)
Many thanks,
Robert / comments
Hi Glen,
Thanks for those details - exactly what I was after :-).
We *really* shouldn't be out of memory'ing on something of that size - our benchmark databases go into the tens or hundreds of thou...