How can we help you today? How can we help you today?
npensa
Activity overview Badges (0) Posts (2) Comments (3)

Comments

Sort by recent activity
squigley said: Good Afternoon! Regex tends to be better at matching things versus not matching things. Given that, we believe that a negative lookahead would be the way to go. It would look something like which will actually only match the first [ ​ (which should cause the item to be included as there is a match) but it will only match that when that is NOT followed by dbo.].[Broadcast% ​ (using the SQL wild card string to show what I mean rather than it actually being the percent sign) ^\[(?!dbo\]\.\[Broadcast.*) [image] ​ The second one is similar just having the .* before and after ist: ^\[(?!dbo\]\.\[.*ist.*) [image] ​ Can you let me know if that helps you out? Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for!  Thank you! / comments
  1. Community
  2. SQL Data Compare
  3. Help with regex to filter out tables
squigley said: Good Afternoon!Regex tends to be better at matching things versus not matching things. Given that, we believe that a negative lookahead would be the way to go.It would look som...
0 votes
Alex B said: Hi @npensa I'm not sure which thing you are referring to regarding "include table names that contain a certain phrase" but with the /Include switch on the SQL Data Compare command line the third part in the /Include option is a regular expression, so it should be able to do a "starts with" option using the carrot ^ operator. I believe the switch would look like this to include tables that start with "a": /Include:table:^a.* This, however, won't affect the initial load of the comparison as at that point all of the tables are still being compared I'm afraid.  Meaning, it will not be filtered at that point and the tables will all, always be compared because there is no "prefilter" (or ignore options as they are called in the Oracle tools) in the SQL Server tools.  The option above for including (or excluding with /Exclude) are related to what will be deployed. I hope that helps! Kind regards, Alex Hi Alex. I have some very large tables that are static, and the values in them don't change.  We're looking to try and exclude them from even being compared at all so it doesn't drive up the time to migrate changes between these two databases.  I saw this article for the WHERE clause that can be used in the UI to filter rows for comparison (https://documentation.red-gate.com/sdc/setting-up-the-comparison/filtering-the-comparison-with-a-where-clause) and this one where you can create a filter for a comparison (https://productsupport.red-gate.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005881437-How-to-Create-a-Filter-for-Command-Line-Comparisons). 1. Do either of these prevent tables that I don't want compared being compared? 2. Is there any way at all to trim down the comparison and update time so it doesn't take as long since that is the main reason that I'm attempting to write this script? Basically, we don't want to spend 30 minutes comparing a massive table that will never have data changes between the two databases if we don't have to. / comments
  1. Community
  2. SQL Data Compare
  3. How to limit a SQL Data Comparison based on the first character of the table name?
Alex B said: Hi @npensa I'm not sure which thing you are referring to regarding "include table names that contain a certain phrase" but with the /Include switch on the SQL Data Compare comman...
0 votes
SQL Data Compare allowed us to trim down the backup time of one of our databases by only copying the different rows between them instead of migrating the whole database. / comments
  1. Community
  2. General Forum
  3. Competition: Win a three month subscription to Pluralsight!
SQL Data Compare allowed us to trim down the backup time of one of our databases by only copying the different rows between them instead of migrating the whole database.
0 votes
Total activity
8
Last activity
Member since
Following
0 users
Followed by
0 users
Votes
0
Subscriptions
3