Comments
Sort by recent activity
Can you verify if Ignore System Named Constraint and Index Names is also selected? That option is further down the list. The options you have in your screenshot may only be ignoring user named constraint and indexes. / comments
Can you verify if Ignore System Named Constraint and Index Names is also selected? That option is further down the list. The options you have in your screenshot may only be ignoring user named co...
Andrew F wrote: »
Does setting 'ignore performance indexes' (without 'Ignore indexes') give you the desired behavior here?
Yes, unselecting II/selecting IPI does allow me to compare constrained indexes without affecting my performance indexes.
However these two option need to be decoupled.
1. II is badly named and does not distinguish itself from IPI, or mention IPI.
2. The description of IPI feels like a combination of double negatives that make it confusing. IPI claims to ignore everything from II, except primary key and unique constraints. However, II also ignores statistics, which is an additional explicit option that is not part of the II/IPI coupling. Does selecting IPI also ignore statistics? If yes, why doesn't it select the IS option as well?
I still think these options should be decoupled, the II name changed and the descriptive text updated to better explain them. / comments
Andrew F wrote: »
Does setting 'ignore performance indexes' (without 'Ignore indexes') give you the desired behavior here?
Yes, unselecting II/selecting IPI does allow me to compare constrain...
I'm glad this feature has been added, but I think some additional tweaks are needed.
Currently, IGNORE INDEXES (II) and IGNORE PERFORMANCE INDEXES (IPI) are tightly coupled. If I select II, then IPI is selected as well. More importantly, if I unselect IPI, II is deselected as well.
In the current implementation, changing my uniqueness constraint will also require comparing all of my performance tuning indexes. My production environment will always have different performance indexes. Changing the data quality constraint does not mean all of my other performance tuning indexes are invalidated.
I think these features need to be decoupled, with Ignore Indexes being removed and replaced with a more targeted option.
1. Ignore primary key and unique constraints: Ignores unique constraints & primary keys, including the associated indexes that are used to enforce data quality. (Replaces ignore indexes)
2. Ignore performance indexes: Ignores clustered & non-clustered indexes that do not affect data quality. Does not include primary key or unique constraint indexes.
I understand this may require invalidating Saved Defaults, but I think the clarity is worth it. Although the new performance indexes feature has value, I cannot use it to update unique/primary key constraints without risking the performance of the target environment. / comments
I'm glad this feature has been added, but I think some additional tweaks are needed.
Currently, IGNORE INDEXES (II) and IGNORE PERFORMANCE INDEXES (IPI) are tightly coupled. If I select II, then I...
I believe the root problem should actually be considered more of a defect, though not quite a bug. The ignore indexes option doesn't give any warning about the overlap between indexes and constraints. This can cause unexpected and undesirable schema changes.
My minimum acceptable solution was to update the description of the Ignore Indexes option with notice that it would ignore primary keys also. A better solution would be to set Ignore Indexes to only ignore non-key indexes and add a seperate option for ignore Primary Keys. A primary key is more than just an index. / comments
I believe the root problem should actually be considered more of a defect, though not quite a bug. The ignore indexes option doesn't give any warning about the overlap between indexes and constrai...
Please add comparing sys tables into the options menu. I can understand why you wouldn't want them to be included in the default settings, but this could be very useful. / comments
Please add comparing sys tables into the options menu. I can understand why you wouldn't want them to be included in the default settings, but this could be very useful.
If "new" rows is defined as rows that don't exist in the other table, you can certainly do this with SQL Data Compare.
Your comparison results are broken down into rows that exist only in the left table (To Insert), rows in both (To update) and rows existing only in the right table (To Delete).
If your new rows are in the left table, only select the records that show up in that section and create your deployment script. You should end up with only insert statements in your deployment script.
I haven't used the command line for this, so I'll have to defer back to RedGate if the command line support the same options the GUI does.
Hope that helps. / comments
If "new" rows is defined as rows that don't exist in the other table, you can certainly do this with SQL Data Compare.
Your comparison results are broken down into rows that exist only in the left ...
Thank you again Red Gate for inadvertantly revealing a problem with a database. [image]
While compiling some scripts to send you, I noticed that the constraint is scripted as disabled by SSMS as well. Apparently, someone disabled this constraint at some time in the past and never enabled it again. :x
I doubt I would have ever noticed this if not for your scripting tools summary, where it finished with
PRINT N'Disabling constraints on ...'
.
Problem solved.
Thanks again,
Wes / comments
Thank you again Red Gate for inadvertantly revealing a problem with a database.
While compiling some scripts to send you, I noticed that the constraint is scripted as disabled by SSMS as well. A...
Just to ensure I'm understanding your situation, you want to compare the join of two tables with the same table join in another database, ignoring the column used in the join condition.
If that is correct, create a view in both locations that generates the results you want to compare. Perform the comparison using these views, set a logical Key value (e.g. XId?) and ignore the real PK column differences.
**Update**
I just tried comparing views and they don't appear in SQL Data Compare, even though the tab indicates they are comparable. I've created another forum post for this.
*Answered* http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/vi ... hp?t=17810 / comments
Just to ensure I'm understanding your situation, you want to compare the join of two tables with the same table join in another database, ignoring the column used in the join condition.
If that is ...
I completely agree that this bug needs to be fixed.
I don't want to change the delay because there are many times I do not want it to popup immediately and 300ms delay is reasonable enough for that.
This bug almost seems like SQLPrompt is rendering the suggestions list twice as I can occasionally highlight the top item in the list using the down arrow keys, but it will be de-selected a moment later and I'll have to press the down arrow again. Please fix. / comments
I completely agree that this bug needs to be fixed.
I don't want to change the delay because there are many times I do not want it to popup immediately and 300ms delay is reasonable enough for that...
Add another vote for this. The lack of key columns is the only reason my dev team just decided to use Visio instead.
Visio shows a PK/FK status in front of each related column when a database is reverse engineered. I can't imagine why it is not possible for dependency tracker to do the same.
Wes
[Update] I just noticed this is a topic I started when I worked at another company. [image] / comments
Add another vote for this. The lack of key columns is the only reason my dev team just decided to use Visio instead.
Visio shows a PK/FK status in front of each related column when a database is r...