Comments
Sort by recent activity
Hi jgonnering,
Filtering seems to work OK for us using a sample database, so we'd like to know more about what's going on here. Could you contact support@red-gate.com so you can send them the video? / comments
Hi jgonnering,
Filtering seems to work OK for us using a sample database, so we'd like to know more about what's going on here. Could you contact support@red-gate.com so you can send them the video?
Hi WithaG, thanks for trying Data Compare.
The reason Data Compare doesn't save row-level selections in a project is that this would essentially be equivalent to saving the deployment script, since your saved selections would only take into account the rows that were in the database at the time.
If you only need table-level granularity, your best bet is probably to look on the "Tables & Views" tab of the connection dialog. This will allow you to exclude most of the tables from your comparison, leaving just the 4 tables you need to deploy.
If you need to deploy only certain rows within a table you could add a WHERE clause, which will be re-applied when you click "Compare Now". This can also be found on the Tables & Views tab.
I hope you find this information useful. / comments
Hi WithaG, thanks for trying Data Compare.
The reason Data Compare doesn't save row-level selections in a project is that this would essentially be equivalent to saving the deployment script, since...
Hi Jelluh,
This looks like bug SOC-7081, which was fixed in SQL Source Control version 5.1.2. Could you check whether Source Control is up to date?
EDIT: You can check whether updates are available from the source control tab inside SSMS: [image] / comments
Hi Jelluh,
This looks like bug SOC-7081, which was fixed in SQL Source Control version 5.1.2. Could you check whether Source Control is up to date?
EDIT: You can check whether updates are available...
Hi Jelluh,
I'm Sam, a software developer on the Compare team.
We're currently working on fully supporting temporal tables, but the crash you're seeing is not expected behaviour. Could you send us a report?
When registering live databases, Compare currently (v11.6.7) treats the temporal table and the history table as entirely separate tables, not understanding that they are linked. Both tables should be deployed correctly except that system versioning is turned off - Compare shouldn't be crashing in this situation.
When registering an SSDT-generated scripts folder, the new syntax (GENERATED ALWAYS, PERIOD FOR SYSTEM_TIME, SYSTEM_VERSIONING) won't be recognised by the parser. You'll get a parser errors dialog (you can ignore such statements with the "ignore parser errors" option for now) but this doesn't ask you to send an error report.
So I'm not sure why you're experiencing a crash dialog. I don't see anything (recent) in our bug database - can you try sending the report if you haven't already, and email support@red-gate.com quoting the email address you've entered? / comments
Hi Jelluh,
I'm Sam, a software developer on the Compare team.
We're currently working on fully supporting temporal tables, but the crash you're seeing is not expected behaviour. Could you send us ...
mika76 wrote:
"c:Program FilesRed GateSQL Compare 10SQLCompare.exe"
We made SQL Compare significantly more deterministic between versions 10.4 and 11. You might have better luck if you try upgrading, at least in the cases where the database has not changed. / comments
mika76 wrote:
"c:Program FilesRed GateSQL Compare 10SQLCompare.exe"
We made SQL Compare significantly more deterministic between versions 10.4 and 11. You might have better luck if you try...
Just adding a reply in case others are reading this thread...
I believe Anu from Support contacted Peter and it was established that one of the databases was in 2005 compatibility mode. SQL Compare ignored the difference because compression isn't supported in SQL Server 2005. / comments
Just adding a reply in case others are reading this thread...
I believe Anu from Support contacted Peter and it was established that one of the databases was in 2005 compatibility mode. SQL Compar...
Hi Pete,
I think this is happening because SQL Compare ignores filegroups by default, and compression is (kind of) a filegroup property.
In the project options, could you try unchecking the option to ignore "filegroups, partition schemes and partition functions"?
I hope this solves your problem. / comments
Hi Pete,
I think this is happening because SQL Compare ignores filegroups by default, and compression is (kind of) a filegroup property.
In the project options, could you try unchecking the option ...
Hello Mr(s) Kerber,
It looks like you may be opening the snapshot in an older version of SQL Compare than the version used to save it. This can cause the database to be incompletely registered, such that some object collections are not available.
Are you able to open the snapshot using the latest version of Compare?
Thanks and regards,
Sam Blackburn. / comments
Hello Mr(s) Kerber,
It looks like you may be opening the snapshot in an older version of SQL Compare than the version used to save it. This can cause the database to be incompletely registered, su...
Yes, Compare and Data Compare can do this.
You could deploy any schema changes (e.g. extra columns in a table) using Compare and then deploy data changes using Data Compare. If you just want to restore a previous database state then a backup is often a quicker way to do it, although that is troublesome in some cases (moving to an older server, Azure, etc.)
The main advantages of using Compare and Data Compare come into play when you need to do more than just restore a backup: you can see the differences before you deploy them, use filters to deploy only some of the data, use mappings to migrate data across schema changes, and so on.
Hope this helps
Sam Blackburn
Developer, Red Gate Software / comments
Yes, Compare and Data Compare can do this.
You could deploy any schema changes (e.g. extra columns in a table) using Compare and then deploy data changes using Data Compare. If you just want to re...
Hi all,
Project options seem to be loaded correctly by the SC and SDC command lines (e.g. check "treat empty strings as NULL" in the UI, save project, re-run the command line and the differences are gone). Are you seeing a more subtle problem with loading project options, or is our documentation misleading? / comments
Hi all,
Project options seem to be loaded correctly by the SC and SDC command lines (e.g. check "treat empty strings as NULL" in the UI, save project, re-run the command line and the differences ar...