Using MS Sync Framework with SqlSyncProvider with SQL Express: I know sql merge replication places limits on how many columns a table can have, but I haven't seen anything about limits with Sync Framework. What is the maximum number of tables that can be synchronized and what is the maximum number of columns in a table that can be synchronized with Sync Framework?
afaik, there is no hard limits. the columns and tables are added in a collection.
having said that, the scope configuration is stored in the scope_config table as an xml column. the scope configuration has a list of all table and columns in a scope and afaik, the xml column has a 2gb limit (i doubt you'll hit a 2gb scope configuration)
Related
I'm creating a DB using SQL Server 2008.
This DB will be used in two countries and at some time (every day) they will be synchronized, I'll use the Replication service to accomplish that.
Most of the tables are using an Int column with Identity increment. But the tables will be empty when deployed so both countries will have a row with identity 1, 2, and son. I've never use replication before so I wanna know if there will be an error when the tables are synchronized?
Should I use a GUID data type instead?
Replicate Identity Columns (MSDN):
Replication offers three identity range management options:
Automatic. Used for merge replication and transactional replication with updates at the Subscriber...
Manual. Used for snapshot and transactional replication without updates at the Subscriber...
None. This option is recommended only for backwards compatibility...
So, yes, you can continue to use IDENTITY, provided you read through the information on replication and choose an option that makes sense for you.
Under Automatic, what it does is each server grabs a range of usable identity values and hands the individual values out as needed. Provided synchronization occurs often enough so that the ranges aren't completely exhausted, you'll never notice this detail.
And this allows you to scale out later as needed - as opposed to e.g. a MOD scheme where one server hands out odd values and the other even - you can't easily add a third server to such a scheme.
By your description, it sounds like you want to implement so called Merge replication.
In SQL Server you would not need to change the identity to a GUID, however, if you don't SQL server will automatically add another column called rowguid for each table and you may end up with duplicates of your original identity column. To circumvent this, you could have the servers assign mod 2 IDs.
In my opinion it makes most sense to use a GUID for the IDs altogether. Don't forget to set the ROWGUIDCOL property on your identity columns. Good luck.
Relevant MSDN:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms152746.aspx
Consider adding a deviceID field to all tables users can update. With each device making changes using its own ID as part of the PK, there cannot be conflicts across devices.
Can we get the benefits of the partitioning of a SQL server 2010 table when we use entity framework as the data layer?
The table will have 10 000 records per day and it will be partitioned by the date created (Ex :- Older than 30 days and new)
I'm not very skilled in SQL Server so perhaps I'm wrong but I believe that table partitioning should be transparent to queries (if we are talking about automatic partition function defined in the table) - it means that common queries should still work and even have better performance if partitioning is configured correctly. So in case of database-frist design, EF should not have any problem with this because it still works with single logical table. If you mean manual partitioning by creating new table each month then it is a big probrem with EF and you will need stored procedures to access that tables.
Is there a way that I can in code (Sproc ,etc) distribute the data for a table into multiple filegroups without actually having SQL Server partitioning available (Only have Standard Edition)? I wanted to be able to breakout my FileStream data into different "Partitions", but without an Enterprise license I can't actually use the partitioning functionality.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
S
You can distribute your data into different databases and join them with views. The tricky part of that will be to keep the views updated as you add/remove data.
You need to do this "partition" on a logical key (like a calendar date) where each DB has data within a certain range. If you cluster on this field, the query analyzer will be able to determine which DB to pull data from without issue.
At my workplace we are using this technique for a very large (multi-billion row) data set that we get monthly additions to and it works great.
This involves data replication, kind of:
We have many sites with SQL Express installed, there is an 'audit' database on each site that has one table in 1st normal form (to make life simple :)
Now I need to get this table from each site, and copy the contents (say, with a Date Time Value > 1/1/200 00:00, but this will change obviously) and copy it to a big 'super table' in sql server proper, that also has the primary key as the Site Name (That needs injecting in) and the current primary key from the SQL Express table)
e.g. Many SQL Express DBs with the following table columns
ID, Definition Name, Definition Type, DateTime, Success, NvarChar1, NvarChar2 etc etc etc
And the big super table needs to have:
SiteName, ID, Definition Name, Definition Type, DateTime, Success, NvarChar1, NvarChar2 etc etc etc
Where items in bold are the primary key(s)
Is there a Microsoft (or non MS I suppose) app/tool/thing to manager copying all this data accross already, or do we need to write our own?
Many thanks.
You can use SSIS (which comes with SQL Server) to populate, it can be set up with variables to change the connection string to the various databases. I have one that loops through the whole list and does the same process using three differnt files from three differnt vendors. You could so something simliar to loop through the different site databases. Put the whole list of database you want to copy the audit data from in a table and loop through it changing the connection string each time.
However, why on earth would you want one mega audit table per site? If every table in the database populates the audit table as changes happen, then the audit table eventually becomes a huge problem for performance. Every insert, update and delete has to hit this table and then you are proposing to add an export on top of that. This seems to me to be a guaranteed structure for locking and deadlocks and all sorts of nastiness. Do yourself a favor and limit each audit table to the table it is auditing.
Things to consider:
Linked servers and sp_msforeachdb as part of a do-it-yourself solution.
SQL Server Replication (by Microsoft) (which I believe can pull data from SQL Server Express)
SQL Server Integration Services which can pull data from SQL Server Express instances.
Personally, I would investigate Integration Services first.
Good luck.
You could do this with SymmetricDS. SymmetricDS is open source, web-enabled, database independent, data synchronization/replication software. It uses web and database technologies to replicate tables between relational databases in near real time. The software was designed to scale for a large number of databases, work across low-bandwidth connections, and withstand periods of network outage.
As of right now, however, you would need to implement a custom IDataLoaderFilter extension point (in Java) to add the extra column. The metadata would be available though because your SiteName would be the external_id.
We have a SQL 2005/2008 database that has a table with a computed column. We're using the computed column as a discriminator in NHibernate so having it in the database is proving to be very useful.
In order to gain the benefits of faster integration tests, I'd like to be able to run our integration tests against an in-memory database such as SQLite or SQL CE. But I don't think either of those support the computed column.
Are there any other solutions to my problem? I have complete access to the database and can modify it if there's a better solution available. I've seen this post that suggests using a view instead of a computed column, is this the best alternative?
What I did was added the computed column to the DataTable when loading the table from SqlCe. I stored the definition of the computed DataColumn in a "configuration" table stored in the database. I was able to do complex calculations that depended on a "chain" of tables, where each table performed a simplier function of a more complex function. (The last table in the chain contained the results.) I used SqlCe because one table of five contained 15 million rows. Too much data for the in-memory data sets of ADO.NET. (I had a requirement of using local client based calculations before posting to server.)