Random question, but I was wondering if there is a way to determining the SQL server version of a database before attaching it (i.e. whilst in a folder on the network).
The reason I ask is because we receive extremely large databases that take ages to attach only to then fail because they are not the correct version.
I was hoping there might be a tip to save time.
Many Thanks
Related
I have a number of MS Access databases that range from the simple to the fairly complex. They exist as split databases on a shared drive on an on site LAN and the users all have accdr front ends to work with.
Until Covid 19 this worked quite well, now we all have to work from home. While I expected some performance issues, I did not quite expect performance to take quite that much of a hit. So I am looking for ways to migrate to something that will work well with everyone trying to work via a VPN.
An additional fly in the ointment is that there is no budget to work with and getting IT support is akin to summoning the great old ones (it's difficult and you are likely to die insane).
So I have begun to research some different options. MS SQL Server has come up, but I don't know very much about how to implement it. I do not have a dedicated machine to put this on.
I have looked at Sharepoint, but some of the stuff I have been reading makes it seem like this is not a great option as some of my queries are complicated and I have some pretty large tables (45k records, 100 fields per record) In the most complex DB, I have to add several thousand records each day and run several update queries on the freshly added records.
MS Azure looks promising, but again I don't know if that will put me at odds with the malevolent IT gods.
I started looking at office 365 Power apps, but I don't need any mobile device support and it doesn't look like it has the Oomph I need.
Google and Duck Duck Go haven't thrown up anything usefull that I could find among the dross. I'm certain what I need is out there, I just can't find it. I have found that One drive is right out, and likewise Sharepoint for anything other than the simplest DB I have built.
What I am looking for is any solutions, articles, books or even papyrus scrolls and stone tablets that might get me pointed in the right direction. Any Ideas? Any other information you need?
Edit: After so looking I have found that I may be able to get MS SQL server on a virtual server without angering the IT demons. Azure as a solution is out unless I find a suitable sacrifice. Any good places to look for information on how to use SQL server from a standing start?
Consider migrating the backend databases to SQL Server. There's a SQL Server Migration Assistant that will do this for you. Your frontend will contain links to the resulting SQL Server tables.
The last time I did this I got an immediate 2X performance improvement on a LAN. Over a VPN, you should expect similar, possibly better, performance improvements. Quite a good win for something so simple to do without having to do a full rewrite. Don't expect miracles however; Access by nature is a very thick client.
You don't necessarily need a full-blown SQL Server; SQL Server Express should suffice, and you can run that on any machine on your LAN. The download for SQL Server Express Edition can be found here.
You can read up on the migration process here.
You should consider using Remote Destop Connection first!
As you already managed to connect employees by VPN to LAN, you just need to enable remote access to their machines at work! That is the simplest solution and it doesn't need a fast connection or any changes on the application. You can enable WOL so they can turn on machines themselfes.
Of course you should also consider migrate to a RDBMS like Robert advised!
My issue is that I have a SQL database that is the output of a SQL project in an ASP.NET solution. This output consists of 2 datafiles, lets call them MainDB.mdf and DocContent.mdf, and the necessary log files. DocContent.mdf has one table, doc_content, which, you guessed it, stores the bytes for documents. There are multiple dev's working on this project, and we each have a (localdb) instance of the DB to use.
What I need to make happen is to attach MY MainDB.mdf referring to dev B's DocContent.mdf. The data FK's match 1:1, the schema is identical, the only difference is that Dev B populated the varbinary field with uploaded documents.
SQL seems to be doing everything in its power to prevent this. I get:
I realize I could do a Data Compare and pump the data in that way, but unfortunately Dev B and I are not at the same location and the logistics of him sending his full DB output would be harder than finding a work around with what I've got (I hope, anyway).
Surely there is a way to tell SQL to shut up and just use the datafile provided?
The only info I could find on this subject referred to attaching a DB without its LDF. Anyone know how to make this scenario work?
So, for anyone interested, the short answer is 'no'. There are a number of convoluted steps that you you can take to force the database into SUSPECT mode and possible even get it into single user emergency mode, but it was not worth the effort and the end result is that you will have to hack into the sys tables in order to make it limp along this way.
In the end it was easier to get a full transfer of Dev B's data files.
I've created a software that is supposed to synchronize data between two databases in SQL Server. The program is tested as much as I was able to do so while having a limited amount of data and limited time. Now I need to make it run and I want to play that safe.
What would be the best approach to be able to recover if something goes wrong and database gets corrupted? (meaning not usable by the original program)
I know I can backup both databases each time I perform the sync. I also know that I could do point in time recovery.
Are there any other options? Is it possible to rollback only the changes made by the sync service? (both databases are going to be used by other software)
You probably have, but I suggest investigating the backup and recovery options available in SQL Server. Since you have no spec, you don't know how the system is going to behave against these changes, leaving you with a higher likelihood of problems. For this reason (and many other obvious reasons) I would want to have solid SQL backups/recovery process in place. Unfortunately Express isn't very good in automating this area, but you can run them manually before the sync.
At the very least, make everything transactional; a failure in your program should not leave the databases in a partially sync'd state.
Too bad you don't have a full version of SQL Server... then you might be able to use something like replication services and eliminate this program altogether? ;)
I am trying to get the content of one MSSQL database to a second MSSQL database. There is no conflict management required, no schema updating. It is just a plain copy and replace data. The data of the destination database would be overwritten, in case somebody would have had changed something there.
Obviously, there are many ways to do that
SQL Server Replication: Well established, but using old protocols. Besides that, a lot of developers keep telling me that the devil is in the details and the replication might not always work as expected and that is this best choice for an administrator, but not for a developer.
MS Sync Framework: MSF is said to be the cool, new technology. Yes, it is this new stuff, you love to get, because it sounds so innovative. There is the generic approach for synchronisation, this sounds like: Learn one technology and how to integrate data source, you will never have to learn how to develop syncing again. But on the other hand, you can read that the main usage scenario seems to be to synchronize MSSQL Compact databases with MSSQL.
SQL Server Integration Services: This sounds like an emergency plannable solution. In case the firewall is not working, we have a package that can be executed again and again... until the firewall drops down or the authentication is fixed.
Brute Force copy and replace of database files: Probably not the best choice.
Of course, when looking on the Microsoft websites, I read that every technology (apart from brute force of course) is said to be a solid solution that can be applied in many scenarios. But that is, of course, not the stuff I wanted to hear.
So what is your opinion about this? Which technology would you suggest.
Thank you!
Stefan
The easiest mechanism is log shipping. The primary server can put the log backups on any UNC path, and then you can use any file sync tools to manage getting the logs from one server to another. The subscriber just automatically restores any transaction log backups it finds in its local folder. This automatically handles not just data, but schema changes too.
The subscriber will be read-only, but that's exactly what you want - otherwise, if someone can update records on the subscriber, you're going to be in a world of hurt.
I'd add two techniques to your list.
Write T-SQL scripts to INSERT...SELECT the data directly
Create a full backup of the database and restore it onto the new server
If it's a big database and you're not going to be doing this too often, then I'd go for the backup and restore option. It does most of the work for you and is guaranteed to copy all the objects.
I've not heard of anyone using Sync Framework, so I'd be interested to hear if anyone has used it successfully.
I am working for a company and I need to create a program really fast. My program will run with 100 users and they will make approximately 100 transactions each per day. As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server. I am therefore looking for alternatives that have some sort of transaction support without running on a server. I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems. Isn't is so that a whole table is locked as soon as one user attempts to read from it? Anyways... My question is what other alternatives there are.
The real answer is likely to vary significantly depending on what quantity of data is being talked about here.
I'd take a look at SQLite. It supports transactions, triggers, etc and is supported by things like NHibernate which may make your database mapping life much easier.
Check out SQLite.
Is sqlite a proper solution? Not sure how remote storage is supported, though. That's not a common feature.
You could look into SQL CE, it's a very good local database from Microsoft.
There are many options. As others have stated, setting up and running with SQLLite, SQL Server Express, or any of a number of other small, light, and free databases.
Assuming you need this today, I would go with the one you know most about. Further, I would stay away from anything resembling Access. If you don't already have experience in using it for multi user access, you are going to burn too much time figuring out the problems.
That said, I'd lean towards SQL Server express first. It's free and can scale up to full sql server with no code changes.
I believe this could be solved using Microsoft Access, which is an alright solution, though I believe I will run into locking problems.
I'd say locking and queuing would be the least of your worries. With 100 concurrent users, Access will probably corrupt itself in minutes. With 10k+ records/day, it will likely bog down your entire network in a month or so.
As I am under time pressure, and various other constraints it is not possible to set up a proper database running on a server.
You can bring a database server up in an hour. Much less time than you'll spend hacking away at Access. There's open-source virtual machine images, MSSQL Express, hosted solutions, etc. Time and cost should be non-issues.
About the only thing I can think of that would have you using Access is the Forms support (which can be hooked to MSSQL Server) or DBA maintenance. Frankly, though, at 100 users Access will take so much babysitting that you can afford a hosted SQL instance and still come out ahead.
I think that Firebird can be a very good alternative.
Firebird is available in embedded and can also work with server. It have many features.