Comments
Sort by recent activity
Well, this is a rather interesting problem. You set up a default value, and no longer allow nulls. But the table itself contains nulls [image] IMHO null data in such tables should be updated first to the new desired value, which may or may not be the new default value. It is difficult to decide automatically whether the nullability has been changed by mistake, or what the new value for the nullable column should be.
While I would say that doing the data change automatically would corrupt the database, not everyone is as paranoid as I am, and I can see your point that such behaviour could be useful in certain cases. Therefore I've added this feature to SQL Compare. We will use the DRI default with ISNULL if a colum is changed from nullable to not nullable and a DRI default is already set up on the non nullable side, but not on the column that allows nulls. Also, in the first iteration we will not allow automatic reverting to the default value if the datatype has changed in any way. Assuming this feature will not bring unforseen problems in our tests it will be available in the next major release of SQL Compare (SQL Compare 7, scheduled for release in Q3). There will be a high priority warning accompanying such automatic data mangling.
Regards,
Andras / comments
Well, this is a rather interesting problem. You set up a default value, and no longer allow nulls. But the table itself contains nulls IMHO null data in such tables should be updated first to the ...
GarthBI wrote:
It's expiration day today. Any word on Beta2 or an extension to Beta1?
There will be no second beta. We are currently install testing SQL Compare 7, and we are planning to release it very soon. If you need to use the functionality of SQL Compare 7 before it is released, and have a support contract, please contact our support.
Regards,
Andras / comments
GarthBI wrote:
It's expiration day today. Any word on Beta2 or an extension to Beta1?
There will be no second beta. We are currently install testing SQL Compare 7, and we are planning to relea...
burtonrodman wrote:
I would be glad to test an updated beta. Let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks!
Burton
Please upgrade your SQL Server Express CTP. The February CTP ( 10.0.1300.13) seems to work properly. If you still experience difficulties, please let us know.
Regards,
Andras / comments
burtonrodman wrote:
I would be glad to test an updated beta. Let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks!
Burton
Please upgrade your SQL Server Express CTP. The February CTP ( ...
Many thanks for suggesting the above option. I have saved this request, and we will consider it for a future version (we are unlikely to include this in version 7.0, but nothing is set into stone).
If anyone else is affected by the lack of this option, please let us know (the more people need it the sooner it will be in the product [image]
Once again thanks for you feedback,
Regards,
Andras / comments
Many thanks for suggesting the above option. I have saved this request, and we will consider it for a future version (we are unlikely to include this in version 7.0, but nothing is set into stone)....
DennisRehm wrote:
I know there was a request for SQL Compare 6 that identical items could be skipped when printing a comparison report. If I'm printing, I'm interested in the differences. This could be an option that was set and saved, or there could be an indicator to mark sections to be printed.
Where does this request stand for SQL Compare 7?
Thanks.
Adding the above extra option was not included for this release. It is still under review, and may be scheduled for a point release in the future. The primary features for SQL Compare 7 are support for SQL Server 2008 and supporting backup files.
Regards,
Andras / comments
DennisRehm wrote:
I know there was a request for SQL Compare 6 that identical items could be skipped when printing a comparison report. If I'm printing, I'm interested in the differences. This c...
There are a few operations that must be called outside the transaction, like sp_addrolemember, most of the user opertaions on SQL Server 2000, fulltext catalog statements. These operations are not transactional, and cannot be run inside a transaction.
Regards,
Andras / comments
There are a few operations that must be called outside the transaction, like sp_addrolemember, most of the user opertaions on SQL Server 2000, fulltext catalog statements. These operations are not ...
shadowbob wrote:
One thing I noticed after installing 3.8 RC, is that when refreshing a cache, the progress pauses for a long time on "Reading object text" -- much longer than the previous version. This makes the overall cache refresh take longer than before. Is Prompt doing more than it used to, or is there a bug?
Hi, @version), whether there are any open transactions in this database (dbcc opentran). Are you including system objects in prompt? In theory prompt should not affect SQL Compare at all (unless it keeps a lock to certain tables, which it should not do). What version of SQL Compare do you have. Also, are there any locking issues (select * from sys.dm_tran_locks)?
Background information: Reading the object text is retrieving the definition of textual objects, like stored procedures, views, constraints, etc. On 2000 it is reading these from dbo.syscomments, on 2005 it is reading from sys.sql_modules. Could you have a look how long a simple query from these tables/views takes?
Regards,
Andras / comments
shadowbob wrote:
One thing I noticed after installing 3.8 RC, is that when refreshing a cache, the progress pauses for a long time on "Reading object text" -- much longer than the previous versi...
Many thanks for all your comments. We have now added an option to add a use statement at the beginning of a script generated by SQL Compare 7. This option will be off by default.
Regards,
Andras / comments
Many thanks for all your comments. We have now added an option to add a use statement at the beginning of a script generated by SQL Compare 7. This option will be off by default.
Regards,
Andras
jerryhung wrote:
That explains it, I thought SQL Compare 7 wasn't saving the project files
Yes I did read that part on the release thread
just didn't realize 6.0 cannot read 7.0 Projects
now I have 6.0 and 7.0 Projects folder, it's fine now
Unfortunately it was and is a bug in version 6, and it was found only in version7 [image] . From version 7 this should no longer be an issue, so version 8, ... will display some friendly information instead of blanks.
Regards,
Andras / comments
jerryhung wrote:
That explains it, I thought SQL Compare 7 wasn't saving the project files
Yes I did read that part on the release thread
just didn't realize 6.0 cannot read 7.0 Projects
now I h...
DennisRehm wrote:
I downloaded the SQL Compare 7 beta in the hope that I could sync our new SQL Server 2008 Feb CTP with our existing SQL Server 2005 dev database. Worked perfectly and saved a lot of effort. I'll continue to use it.
Now I'm anxiously awaiting the SQL Data Compare 7 beta to sync data, too.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with SQL Compare. We are working on SQL Data Compare even at the moment, and we will release it together with SQL Compare.
Regards,
Andras / comments
DennisRehm wrote:
I downloaded the SQL Compare 7 beta in the hope that I could sync our new SQL Server 2008 Feb CTP with our existing SQL Server 2005 dev database. Worked perfectly and saved a l...