Comments
Sort by recent activity
Hmm, I don't think there is a quick way around this.
Some people use Synonyms to refer to other server objects and then these can be named the same throughout your databases. The only difference is how they are defined (and there is an option to ignore server/database names in Synonyms in Compare).
Not sure how useful that is for you, but it's perhaps worth investigating? / comments
Hmm, I don't think there is a quick way around this.
Some people use Synonyms to refer to other server objects and then these can be named the same throughout your databases. The only difference is...
Unfortunately, I'm not sure precisely when this will be implemented - it's currently marked as 9.x and quite a few people have asked for it, so hopefully it shouldn't be too long. I've added a note of this thread to the job to give it another "vote" in any case. / comments
Unfortunately, I'm not sure precisely when this will be implemented - it's currently marked as 9.x and quite a few people have asked for it, so hopefully it shouldn't be too long. I've added a note...
Are you referencing linked servers?
If so, this is a known issue, and we have an existing enhancement request to provide an option for setting the transaction isolation level to use in your scripts (ref. SC-1318) / comments
Are you referencing linked servers?
If so, this is a known issue, and we have an existing enhancement request to provide an option for setting the transaction isolation level to use in your scripts...
Based on your timings, I think it's understandable why you need to specify the tables!
I think the kind of change David is suggesting would maybe be configurable as an option so as to not confuse existing customers, although he's in a better position than myself to check that. / comments
Based on your timings, I think it's understandable why you need to specify the tables!
I think the kind of change David is suggesting would maybe be configurable as an option so as to not confuse e...
We've just been discussing this a little further here. So the main issue boils down to you ideally wanting the deployment you run via Data Compare to only look at tables which actually have data (i.e. ones where there is something in the Data folder in your set of scripts). This is something we can investigate adding an option for, but I'm also wondering whether the "/exclude:additional" switch would help?
This should exclude objects not present in the source, the end result of which is you shouldn't get any data removed from the target of your deployment, as although all tables will be compared, any where you have rows in the target but not in your source-controlled scripts (i.e. transactional data) will be skipped from the sync.
This cannot be combined with the /Include switch unfortunately; but if used alone it achieves what you're after, then that's not a problem.
I'm not 100% sure it will work exactly as you want, but it's perhaps worth trying - if not, let us know and we can investigate improvements that can be made to the application itself. / comments
We've just been discussing this a little further here. So the main issue boils down to you ideally wanting the deployment you run via Data Compare to only look at tables which actually have data (i...
Thanks for your post.
Unfortunately, the behaviour you see is correct. There are a couple of options that can be used with the /argfile switch as detailed here but they aren't really of any use for your situation.
I'll log this as a feature request however, as I can see the sense in wanting to use XML to specify the tables to use but still use other switches in combination with this.
One other thing you could try is setting up your tables to use and saving an .sdc project. You can reference this using the /Project switch, and based on a quick test, you can still combine this with the /server2 /database2 switches. / comments
Thanks for your post.
Unfortunately, the behaviour you see is correct. There are a couple of options that can be used with the /argfile switch as detailed here but they aren't really of any use for...
Thanks for your post.
Proxy servers can sometimes interfere with the deactivation process unfortunately, however if you contact us at support@red-gate.com with your serial number we should be able to work something out. / comments
Thanks for your post.
Proxy servers can sometimes interfere with the deactivation process unfortunately, however if you contact us at support@red-gate.com with your serial number we should be able ...
Thanks for your post.
Which version are you using? I've tried replicating the issue here on a similar script and it seems to work; however I'm using a version 2 EAP. / comments
Thanks for your post.
Which version are you using? I've tried replicating the issue here on a similar script and it seems to work; however I'm using a version 2 EAP.
Thanks for your post.
From the description you gave it sounds like you're hitting a known problem, and we're hoping to put in some changes to stop this happening in the future.
Our internal job for this is SOC-375
As you say, refreshing helps, as should visiting the "commit" tab. / comments
Thanks for your post.
From the description you gave it sounds like you're hitting a known problem, and we're hoping to put in some changes to stop this happening in the future.
Our internal job for...
Thanks for your post.
I've tried to replicate this myself with this kind of change: USE [AW2]
GO
/****** Object: Index [IX_Test] Script Date: 02/04/2011 11:48:05 ******/
IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.indexes WHERE object_id = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[Test]') AND name = N'IX_Test')
DROP INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test] WITH ( ONLINE = OFF )
GO
USE [AW2]
GO
/****** Object: Index [IX_Test] Script Date: 02/04/2011 11:48:05 ******/
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Test] ON [dbo].[Test]
(
[TID] ASC
)
WHERE [TID] < 0
WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
Source Control correctly detected this (previously it was set to > 0 instead of < 0)
The difference is I am using the EAP of version 2.0 - so you may wish to test this out and see if it makes any difference? You'll find details here: http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?t=12298.
The official version 2 is currently due out at the beginning of March (although this is subject to change of course) / comments
Thanks for your post.
I've tried to replicate this myself with this kind of change:USE [AW2]
GO
/****** Object: Index [IX_Test] Script Date: 02/04/2011 11:48:05 ******/
IF EXI...