Comments
Sort by recent activity
I have another quick question. If I change just the data type of a field (say VarChar to NVarChar) will SQL Compare make the type adjustment and keep the data?
The UI indicates that the fields match, but I'm a little nervous that I'm going to lose my data.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
I have another quick question. If I change just the data type of a field (say VarChar to NVarChar) will SQL Compare make the type adjustment and keep the data?
The UI indicates that the fields mat...
Can you give us some rules about when fields will match both in the UI and in the sync?
This isn't a huge issue as I don't rename fields too often, but I'd like to know that this has been acknowledged as a bug and will be fixed in a future release. My vote is to either add a complete field matching feature or to eliminate the matching completely.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
Can you give us some rules about when fields will match both in the UI and in the sync?
This isn't a huge issue as I don't rename fields too often, but I'd like to know that this has been acknowled...
Hi Brian,
So SQL Compare sometimes matches columns, but the matching shown in the UI is not necessarily the same as the matching in the synchronization. That seems like a big bug to me.
Ben / comments
Hi Brian,
So SQL Compare sometimes matches columns, but the matching shown in the UI is not necessarily the same as the matching in the synchronization. That seems like a big bug to me.
Ben
I just sent that screenshot.
It's an interesting deficiency in SQL Compare. I was just reading about data migrations in Ruby on Rails. You can create little scripts that rename fields and tables. I think overall SQL Compare is a lot easier to use, but the ability to map fields would be a great additional feature.
I looked at SQL Refactor. It looks like it would be awkward to rename fields on a development machine and make those same changes to my staging or production server. I have a very smooth process for using SQL Compare to push schema changes from my development machine to my production server. I'm not sure that SQL Refactor fits in to that process. / comments
I just sent that screenshot.
It's an interesting deficiency in SQL Compare. I was just reading about data migrations in Ruby on Rails. You can create little scripts that rename fields and tables....
Didn't there used to be a mapping piece to SQL Compare where you could map fields? Maybe a few versions ago?
Ben / comments
Didn't there used to be a mapping piece to SQL Compare where you could map fields? Maybe a few versions ago?
Ben
I just ran a test and the UI clearly shows the renamed field on the same line with an arrow between them. I have a screenshot, but I don't see a way of uploading it. Is there an email address I can send it to.
I realize that SQL Compare would have to guess, but I had presumed it had made an assumption based on the field position and data type.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
I just ran a test and the UI clearly shows the renamed field on the same line with an arrow between them. I have a screenshot, but I don't see a way of uploading it. Is there an email address I c...
I figured out the problem. I'm using the Developer edition of SQL Server 2005 and by default, the TCP/IP protocol is switched off. Turn it on and restart the service and localhost will work again. / comments
I figured out the problem. I'm using the Developer edition of SQL Server 2005 and by default, the TCP/IP protocol is switched off. Turn it on and restart the service and localhost will work again.
OK, I found that localhost doesn't work now that I've upgraded to SQL Server 2005 for some reason. I can either use my actual machine (which I don't want to use, because I want this script to be portable across machines) or I can use (local). Can anyone explain this?
Thanks,
Ben / comments
OK, I found that localhost doesn't work now that I've upgraded to SQL Server 2005 for some reason. I can either use my actual machine (which I don't want to use, because I want this script to be p...
Thanks for the update. The explanation makes sense, though I wonder why people would want to put their data in an inconsistent state. I'm synchronizing all the tables with this batch file:
SQLDataCompare.exe /server1:Production /database1:mydatabase1 /username1:myusername1 /password1:mypassword1 /server2:localhost /database2:mydatabase2 /out:DataCompareResults.txt /scriptfile:DataCompareSynchronize.sql /force /options:Default /synchronize > DataCompareOutput.txt
Some of the tables are lookup tables, where none of the data is changing day to day. I wonder if these qualify as "not being migrated".
Anyway, thanks for all the help. Despite my moaning about this issue, SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare are great products that have become an indispensible part of my development process.
Ben Mills / comments
Thanks for the update. The explanation makes sense, though I wonder why people would want to put their data in an inconsistent state. I'm synchronizing all the tables with this batch file:
SQLDat...
Hi Brian,
I don't see how this is by design. Surely a tool to sync data shouldn't be changing the schema in any way.
The problem for me is that I use a modelling tool (Dezign for Databases) to generate new versions of the schema into an empty database. I then sync that database with my development copy to get the schema changes (whilst leaving the data in place in the development copy). The tool creates the foreign keys without the WITH NOCHECK option and then SQL Data Compare is trying to set the WITH NOCHECK option. The result is a battle between one tool trying to remove the option and the other trying to add it.
I can ignore these differences, but I think that this is a bug that should be fixed in the next version.
Thanks for the help,
Ben / comments
Hi Brian,
I don't see how this is by design. Surely a tool to sync data shouldn't be changing the schema in any way.
The problem for me is that I use a modelling tool (Dezign for Databases) to gen...