Comments
Sort by recent activity
Sure you're on my list of people to remind. It'll be a public beta so there's not a restricted list of people.
Just working on the installer and tidying things up this week. / comments
Sure you're on my list of people to remind. It'll be a public beta so there's not a restricted list of people.
Just working on the installer and tidying things up this week.
Well done. We've actually included the ability to profile application using webdev straight out of the box in version 3.0. Our beta will be coming out soon, hope you try it out. [image] / comments
Well done. We've actually included the ability to profile application using webdev straight out of the box in version 3.0. Our beta will be coming out soon, hope you try it out.
Until the release SQL Data Compare 6 recently it was running on .NET 1.1 however SQL Compare 6 had been released and that ran on .NET2. Now both the latest versions of the product run .NET2 so there should be no difference in the behaviour of the products now. / comments
Until the release SQL Data Compare 6 recently it was running on .NET 1.1 however SQL Compare 6 had been released and that ran on .NET2. Now both the latest versions of the product run .NET2 so ther...
We're hoping to put in an option in version 6 to override the collation based comparison of the data. There should be an option to force the case sensitivity of the string comparisons regardless of the collation your string is using.
We'll also be re-wording some of the other options to make it clearer what they actually do.
There'll be an Alpha release of version 6 soon but I don't envisage this feature making it before the Beta, the Alpha mainly being released so that people can experiment comparing to backup files.
Hope this helps.
Richard
PS If you want to be put on the list of people to be contacted about the Alpha just drop me an email at richard.mitchell@red-gate.com and I'll make sure you're kept up to date. / comments
We're hoping to put in an option in version 6 to override the collation based comparison of the data. There should be an option to force the case sensitivity of the string comparisons regardless of...
mohaaron wrote:
I found something about one of the tables that I have a question about. On one side of the comparison the PK for CustomerOrder table is not recognized. Meaning that on one side of the Tables & Views tab the Key is set to custom and on the other side the Key is automatically set to the PK CustomerOrderID. Does this have anything to do with the problem? Why would the PK be recognized on one side and not on the other.
Yes it would have something to do with the problem. Perhaps if you used SQL Compare to compare the schema of the tables in both databases there may be a problem with your primary key on one side. I can't think of any reason why the primary key wouldn't be picked up. Have you changed the comparison key on purpose or does PK_CustomerOrder simply not appear
in the selection list?
That perhaps is why Data Compare is attempting to drop the foreign key as it may be having problems recognising the primary key.
It's a possibility.
(If you don't have a valid license for SQL Compare and your trial has run out get in contact with me via a private message and I'll give you a trial extension for it so we can get to the bottom of this).
*curious now* / comments
mohaaron wrote:
I found something about one of the tables that I have a question about. On one side of the comparison the PK for CustomerOrder table is not recognized. Meaning that on one side o...
Having a little think what may be going on here is that it's attempting to drop the primary key on your table that has changed but the foreign key of the other table uses this. This can only mean that you're not using the primary key for your table comparison of the changed table otherwise we wouldn't attempt to drop it. If you change it so that it does use the primary key for comparison then it won't attempt to drop it and all should be bunny rabbit and flowers.
This looks like a problem in the engine of SQL Data Compare. I'm surprised it has taken this long for anybody to find it.
I wonder what would happen if you unchecked the 'Drop primary keys...' option. Presumably you have it turned on for a reason.
Hope this explains things at least. / comments
Having a little think what may be going on here is that it's attempting to drop the primary key on your table that has changed but the foreign key of the other table uses this. This can only mean t...
Well in our development of the website we have two developers myself and Steven. Each of us have our own version of the database on our machines which we develop against. We talk quite a lot so we're never really working on the same procedures or tables at the same time
Each morning the first person in uses SQL Compare to reysnc the changes once they're stable and gets the new code from source gear so of course it matches the database schema.
We also then push the changes to a test server where the tester is running things so generally it goes something like this...
1. SQL Compare Richard to Steven
1.1 Pull changes from Steven to Richard
1.2 Push changes to Steven from Richard
2. SQL Compare Richard to Test System
2.1 Push changes from Richard to Test System
3. SQL Compare Richard to Live System
3.1 Save snapshot of richard into source control ( can use Scream to compare history )
3.2 Save migration script into source control
3.3 Cancel migration
I would imagine you could use the system in this way and it could work quite well. The danger doing it with one backend is that if somebody makes a breaking change it breaks everybodies development until they check in their code and all the developers get it.
Our method also relies on regular updates so the synching back and forth from Richard to Steven is easy to resolve.
Hope this helps. / comments
Well in our development of the website we have two developers myself and Steven. Each of us have our own version of the database on our machines which we develop against. We talk quite a lot so we'...
I would have thought that will be the issue in TableB certainly. The server has to scan all the rows to determine if or not a the row has an AID > a certain value. Whereas for TableA it can just get a chunk of the table and use that immediately. / comments
I would have thought that will be the issue in TableB certainly. The server has to scan all the rows to determine if or not a the row has an AID > a certain value. Whereas for TableA it can just ge...
One thought is that the clustered index on the table isn't related to the ID column so a table scan has to be performed. Have a look at the execution plan for a select columns from table where ID > 0 to see which indexes are being used and how.
That's for starters anyway.
HTH [image] / comments
One thought is that the clustered index on the table isn't related to the ID column so a table scan has to be performed. Have a look at the execution plan for a select columns from table where ID >...
Having a look this doesn't seem to be something to do with SQL Data Compare more one of your tables being corrupt in some way. Not sure quite what could be going on. I came across http://www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=5&messageid=170397 that does seem to talk about an error similar to yours.
I've never seen that error in any testing but it is raised directly from SQL Server when we attempt to retreive the row data.
Not sure what more I can suggest. / comments
Having a look this doesn't seem to be something to do with SQL Data Compare more one of your tables being corrupt in some way. Not sure quite what could be going on. I came across http://www.sqlser...