User profile for Andras B

jamal wrote: I've had the same issue as well. Though the sprocs it can't parse for me don't have anything to do with xml. I'll pass some along to you and David Atkinson. Hi James, we had a look at your scripts, and the primary problem is that it uses the "merge" word as a table alias. This is a keyword in SQL Server 2008 (but not in previous version). MS introduced this keyword, and it made it very difficult to parse older versions of SQL Server scripts. We have made a decision to keep and maintain a single parser, consequently this is a limitation we will not be able to resolve. The workaround I could suggest is to use [merge] instead, it brackets will escape the merge word. Alternatively, you should try to rewrite your statement, so that it does not use the merge word as a table alias. This will help you to migrate in the future to SQL Server 2008, as well as make sure your future sync scripts will execute (on a SQL Server 2008 database) Thanks for your help, Regards, Andras / comments

jamal wrote: I've had the same issue as well. Though the sprocs it can't parse for me don't have anything to do with xml. I'll pass some along to you and David Atkinson. Hi James, we had a lo...

0 votes

SQLGuru wrote: The new Problems Reading Scripts functionality is proving very helpful. In addition to helping me more quickly pinpoint the occasional syntax error checked-in by the devs, the report is pinpointing SQL Compare limitations. I've always had some procedures that SQL Compare could not parse -- it is beginning to look like they all have some things in common. Namely, procedures that include [WITH XMLNAMESPACES] and/or [FOR XML PATH]. However, it is only some procs with these keywords. I haven't isolated the commonality any further yet. Can you guys shed any light on this? Are you aware of specific XML syntax sequences that cause problems? Many thanks for reporting this. We will certainly look into this, but it would help us if you could send some of these stored procedures to me at Andras.Belokosztolszki at red-gate dot com Regards, Andras / comments

SQLGuru wrote: The new Problems Reading Scripts functionality is proving very helpful. In addition to helping me more quickly pinpoint the occasional syntax error checked-in by the devs, the rep...

0 votes

Powlin wrote: Ok here's is the feedback from SQL Compare 8 beta, I'm currently using SQL Compare 6. First thing I observed is the comparaison projects wizard that changed, the script open is the last one used and older one isn't available in the wizard. I have not found a way to change the current project, except to Cancel the wizard and open a new project. Most of the time my last project isn't the one I synchronise so I'm always cancelling the startup wizard. Also there a new approach used to deal with projects, we need to work with filename, I was really appreciating not having to deal with filename like in SQL Compare 6, SQL Data Compare 7 also begin to use filename and I like the way SQL Compare 6 work. When I need to use SQL Compare I know before openning it with server I want to update, so having it the old way was really fast for me to found it. There's was the column sorting that was great to. Also the open project (menu) isn't displaying in the project of SQL Compare (It's in My Documents), I always need to change the folders. Also choosing a project using filename is painful, I have around 30 project and they only differ by database, I really hate having to open a project using SQL Compare 8. Most of time I give up and go back to SQL Compare 6. I also miss the Switch synchronisation direction, I was fast to switch the direction. Now I need to go back to the wizard and resynch both database. On a more positive note, the Filter for object is great, a little complexe to use has we have to set condition but I does the job, I would have be better to have some preset condition like if I right-click on a table named : Group, to have some option menu that add the condition like : Object Name = Group Object Name <> Group or some standard operation to filter. Another thing I miss from SQL Compare 6 is the icon in Filter Objects, it was easy to found them using the icon, now we have to read the text because every object changed position has they are now sorted. I was also liked the fact that the SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 was distinct, has we often sync between database and the new Schema and Role are causing trouble it was easy to remove SQL 2005 things. In conclusion seeing the current features of this new SQL Compare 8, I don't think I will upgrade to it, I like SQL Compare 6 most than 8. Thanks Hi Powlin, thank you for the detailed feedback. The purpose of the beta is exactly to get feedback about the changes we make. You have very well identified some of the main pain points in version 8 beta, and since many of the beta testers have reported similar problems we have spent the time since the beta to sort these issues out. In particular, in the project selection we will provide a way to access the old style of project chooser and you will be able to change the sync direction. To the beta testers on this forum we will make a release candidate available shortly, so you could have a preview at how we have reacted to your comments. We will also consider and look into the other items you mention, like the icons for the object types in the filter panel. Thanks for your feedback, Regards, Andras / comments

Powlin wrote: Ok here's is the feedback from SQL Compare 8 beta, I'm currently using SQL Compare 6. First thing I observed is the comparaison projects wizard that changed, the script open is the ...

0 votes

stevepatches wrote: I am having a problem with the "Ignore..User' permissions and role memberships option". It does not seem to work. I am comparing a directory of scripts to a live database. The scripts directory does not include users. The only reference to users would be in the role membership statements in the roles scripts. When I run the compare it generates CREATE USER statements for all the users referenced in the role memberships. Based on the description of the above setting I would not expect it to do this. What am I missing? Hi Steve, When the "Ignore .. User permission" option is set you should only see "sp_addrolemembers" for roles, i.e. only role membership is included. Synchronizing these roles will not bring over the users. When the option is not set, users will be synchronized as well as dependencies. A user must exist in a consistent database if a "sp_addrolemember" statement is used, therefore if the role membership is included in the sync (the option is not set), a user will be created. If you do not wish to sync the users, please make sure that the above option is set, and the users are not selected explicitly for synchronization. In version 8 the dependencies list will show you if the user has been included as a depenedency, and which object refers to it. Regards, Andras / comments

stevepatches wrote: I am having a problem with the "Ignore..User' permissions and role memberships option". It does not seem to work. I am comparing a directory of scripts to a live database. The...

0 votes

rfarris2000 wrote: I'm pretty happy with the new layout as far as picking the last project or being able to one of the more recent projects. But, one comprise you might think about would be to split the screen with the most recent project at the table or be ble to select one from the list of past projects. Also, one complaint I've had in the past and it may be outside of the scope of this release and outside of the development direction in general is that when you have a project, I'd rather pick and chose my filter there before it compares rather than wait for it to compare the entire database when all I want to do is compare stored procs or views. This comes into play for larger applications like our CRM package that has nearly 2200 tables in it and we use stored procs for our custom reports. Granted the compare is pretty fast but I don't really care about the tables b/c our database changes are handled through the vendor's deployment tools. I do like the switch button on the main screen though. That was an issue I had in the past as well. Thank you for your feedback. We have considered your first suggestion and have saved it for future releases. Concerning pre-filtering, we have done some performance testing. This has shown us that such pre-filtering would not result in a significant performance improvement, but would certainly affect the reliability of synchronization scripts (dependencies would not be identified properly on pre SQL Server 2008 databases). Thanks again for your feedback, Regards, Andras / comments

rfarris2000 wrote: I'm pretty happy with the new layout as far as picking the last project or being able to one of the more recent projects. But, one comprise you might think about would be to s...

0 votes

urs.meili wrote: Yes, indeed I would prefer 7.1 behaviour. The new behaviour means that our scripts suddenly don't work with SQL Compare anymore, as they used to do. Thus it means that 8.0 is not compatible with 7.1. This is a real "show-stopper" for us. Unfortunately this was a bug in v 7.x. From v8 SQL Compare will no longer consider alter view statements. SQL Compare is designed for reading in creation statement, and it is not intended to be used to process subsequent change scripts. Script components do not have to be in order, or indeed in a single file. Indeed, if there are many alter statements, not in a single file, which one should take precedence? One can use SQL Compare together with SQL Server to create a distilled set of SQL scripts, that represent the schema of a database (and not a change script). Concerning the change script, SQL Compare can generate these. As of version 8 it can also generate a change script that can be executed on a live database that is equivalent to a set of creation scripts, i.e. now it will be easier to generate change scripts for live databases based on two script folders (which could be in source control). Regards, Andras / comments

urs.meili wrote: Yes, indeed I would prefer 7.1 behaviour. The new behaviour means that our scripts suddenly don't work with SQL Compare anymore, as they used to do. Thus it means that 8.0 is no...

0 votes

jreynolds wrote: When I set the comments to unchecked, it still seems to pull in comments that are of the following scenario: /** some comments here **/ We have a vendor that does this double-asterisk thing, and it seems to get pulled in every time. The option will ignore comments during comparison, but it will not remove them from the definition of stored procedures, views, etc. I.e. the object definition will match the definition that is stored in sys.sql_modules, but if the only difference between two stored procedures are the comments, we will not mark them as different. Regards, Andras / comments

jreynolds wrote: When I set the comments to unchecked, it still seems to pull in comments that are of the following scenario:/** some comments here **/ We have a vendor that does this doubl...

0 votes

esumanti wrote: Hi, I have just installed sql compare on my terminal service and trying to create a database snapshot from a remote SQL server. I can register and connect to this server using SQL Enterprise manager, I can also ping this server, but it just hung when I tried connecting using sql compare. I also tried to use ip address in "SERVER" - but was not successful, can you help? Thanks Elly Hi Elly, could you prefix the server with tcp: or np: This will force using tcp or named pipes. Also, are you using windows authentication? Is there a firewall between your machine and SQL Server? Regards, Andras / comments

esumanti wrote: Hi, I have just installed sql compare on my terminal service and trying to create a database snapshot from a remote SQL server. I can register and connect to this server using SQ...

0 votes

stan wrote: Hi Ben, i tried using SQL Compare and it shows me the same error "Unable to cast object of type 'System.DBNull' to type 'System.String'. Tanya, i checked and the dbo user is mapped with my user 'dba' which is sysadmin and still it doesn't works, also databases as you said were not taken offline. I forgot to tell the title from the error message, it says "SQL Prompt could not retrieve the database schema", the other text i posted was the error details. Thanks for the help in advance. Hi Stan, The error you have seen usually means that the database system tables contained a null value in a column where our tools were not expecting it. There could be many reasons for this, like a fulltext catalog that has not been properly removed. As a first step, could you run DBCC CHECKDB on this database. This will find any corruptions in the database. If this does not find anything, could you upgrade to SQL Prompt 3.9 please? (We have included some improvements to handle broken database schema files, like the above mentioned fulltext catalogs). Also, could you tell me the compatibility level of the database pleas? Regards, Andras / comments

stan wrote: Hi Ben, i tried using SQL Compare and it shows me the same error "Unable to cast object of type 'System.DBNull' to type 'System.String'. Tanya, i checked and the dbo user is mapped w...

0 votes

stan wrote: Hi Andras CheckDB found 0 errors, here's the text: CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database 'Registro'. DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator. ... Thanks Sorry for the delay. Could you tell me the message displayed in the dialog box when you run SQL Compare and get the error message? Usually it is something like populating object text or stored procedures. (or a screenshot of the error dialog in SQL Compare should do as well) This information will help to find out which system views may have null values where we are not expecting them. I would send you an SQL Query to run to see where the null values are. Alternatively, you can run SQL Profiler, and look at the statement that is being executed when SQL Compare failes during the registration. If you can do this, could you rerun this query on the database in question, and tell me which columns contain null values/send me the result of this query. If you send the information directly to me (Andras.Belokosztolszki (at) red-gate.com) I'll try to get back to you the same/next day. Regards, Andras / comments

stan wrote: Hi Andras CheckDB found 0 errors, here's the text: CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors in database 'Registro'. DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error ...

0 votes

How can we help you today?

Andras B

Comments