Comments
Sort by recent activity
I also agree that this would be a nice (optional) feature. So chalk another vote up to it! / comments
I also agree that this would be a nice (optional) feature. So chalk another vote up to it!
Ive installed the 3.5RC and am happy to see the cross database working well for the most part. Im also happ ythat it supports Database..Table notation as well as Database.dbo.Table, as requested [image]
However i do get a little annoyance here, as i like to have my candidate list pop up very quickly (currenty 50ms), and i also like "." to be a completion character. Thus when i try to do Database..Table, i usually end up with Database.<some user starting with "a">.Table. Would there be any way to have an option to add a single "." to the candidate list when listing roles/schemas/users? Or even an option to make dbo be the default (rather than selecting the first user alphabetically)?
To get around this ive stopped using . as a completion char, but this makes it different to visual studio intellisense and its hard to get used to! / comments
Ive installed the 3.5RC and am happy to see the cross database working well for the most part. Im also happ ythat it supports Database..Table notation as well as Database.dbo.Table, as requested
...
Bart,
I saw in another post that we are getting closer to having a beta verison of version 3.5 available
PLEASE tell me that cross database support is going to be in this release, and please tell me that our preferred syntax of database..tablename will be supported?!
Our 25 licenses already purchased continue to gather dust, as we simply cant use the tool effectively until it supports our coding conventions [image] / comments
Bart,
I saw in another post that we are getting closer to having a beta verison of version 3.5 available
PLEASE tell me that cross database support is going to be in this release, and please tell m...
Can i just add my 2 cents to this topic as well in saying thta for us it is MISSION CRITICAL to be able to do cross database queries.
We also use the notation Database..Table rather than Database.dbo.Table and i would really like to see both forms of syntax supported
I am in a bit of strife as we purchased 25 licenses for our developers, for a tool which is pretty much useless foir the way we code our queries and stored procedures, since our system comprises of 5 or 6 separate, but intrinsically connected databases, and we ALWAYS use the Database..Table syntax [image]
Please tell me this cross database support will be in version 3.1, and please tell me version 3.1 will be coming out soon! / comments
Can i just add my 2 cents to this topic as well in saying thta for us it is MISSION CRITICAL to be able to do cross database queries.
We also use the notation Database..Table rather than Database.d...
Anyconfirmation whether cross database support will definately be in the next point release. Bart, your earlier posts say "i wouldnt be surprised if it makes it" but i really need to know!
As mentioned, the 25 licenses of the tool we have are pretty much useless for us, unless we can do cross database queries. / comments
Anyconfirmation whether cross database support will definately be in the next point release. Bart, your earlier posts say "i wouldnt be surprised if it makes it" but i really need to know!
As ment...
Personally i find the view in groups to be great. And the tip on how to collapse/expand all is good as well. I find it very useful to identify that the actual object is identical, and the difference actually lies in the permission or constraint section (usually fillfactor).
I dont like to have many "ignore" settings on as i like things to be as identical as possible - even fillfactors and so on
I would be devastated if the show in groups function was deleted
And ill also take this opportunity to pimp the suggestion of having "jump to next/prev" difference buttons, to save scrolling through all of the code to find the difference. Any decent difference tool has this functionality! / comments
Personally i find the view in groups to be great. And the tip on how to collapse/expand all is good as well. I find it very useful to identify that the actual object is identical, and the differ...
It's a shame that both the RedGate beta programs ive participated in so far have always ended up like this [image] Everyone raises heaps of issues which is obviously good and gives you guys feedback etc as to what users want and testing all th9ose edge cases that you may not be able to replicate... But we never get a second crack at it to let you guys know whether the issues seem to be fixed.
I realise that releasing a beta is a large task... but my suggestion for future is to really look at your beta programs and try and factor in at least 2 beta releases. Im sure alot of people are in the same boat as me in that due to some showstopper/serious type issues already reported, we cant get to certain positions to then test how the tool reacts and let you guys know if this works for us or not. / comments
It's a shame that both the RedGate beta programs ive participated in so far have always ended up like this Everyone raises heaps of issues which is obviously good and gives you guys feedback etc ...
Make sure you DONT have the following options set:
- Ignore Permissions
- Ignore User's Permissions and Role Membership
We use SQLCompare all the time to verify permissions havent been changed. This is made alot easier if you can use Roles to assign permissions to DB objects... otherwise the users from your testing/staging environment wont be the same as the users in production, and this will cause a lot of differences, if individual users have access permissions granted. / comments
Make sure you DONT have the following options set:
- Ignore Permissions
- Ignore User's Permissions and Role Membership
We use SQLCompare all the time to verify permissions havent been changed. Th...
OK yes i realise it is restoring the previously highlighted object even if it now lives down in the equal section. I agree this is probably a good thing for a lot of users
But once you have clicked on something to show it in the differences pane, there is no way to click off in some area that CLEARS the difference pane. I would like to be able to make it so i have NOTHING selected, so that when i run the compare, it will leave me at the top and not go and find my previous selection in it's new location.
In a future version could you consider adding a way to deselect an item, so nothing is selected (just like when you open a fresh project and havent clicked on any objects yet).
perhaps the act of collapsing the section could deselect an item if you had it selected / comments
OK yes i realise it is restoring the previously highlighted object even if it now lives down in the equal section. I agree this is probably a good thing for a lot of users
But once you have clicke...
Yes it would be great if the code window could show All, Different Only, Differences with Context etc, just like BeyondCompare or Araxis Merge etc
The other thing which would be highly useful are up/down arrows to "jump to next/previous" difference / comments
Yes it would be great if the code window could show All, Different Only, Differences with Context etc, just like BeyondCompare or Araxis Merge etc
The other thing which would be highly useful are u...