Building and maintaining a database that is then deplyed/developed further by many devs is something that goes on in software development all the time. We create a build script, and maintain further update scripts that get applied as the database grows over time. There are many ways to manage this, from manual updates to console apps/build scripts that help automate these processes.
Has anyone who has built/managed these processes moved over to a Source Control solution for database schema management? If so, what have they found the best solution to be? Are there any pitfalls that should be avoided?
Red Gate seems to be a big player in the MSSQL world and their DB source control looks very interesting:
http://www.red-gate.com/products/solutions_for_sql/database_version_control.htm
Although it does not look like it replaces the (default) data* management process, so it only replaces half the change management process from my pov.
(when I'm talking about data, I mean lookup values and that sort of thing, data that needs to be deployed by default or in a DR scenario)
We work in a .Net/MSSQL environment, but I'm sure the premise is the same across all languages.
Similar Questions
One or more of these existing questions might be helpful:
The best way to manage database changes
MySQL database change tracking
SQL Server database change workflow best practices
Verify database changes (version-control)
Transferring changes from a dev DB to a production DB
tracking changes made in database structure
Or a search for Database Change
I look after a data warehouse developed in-house by the bank where I work. This requires constant updating, and we have a team of 2-4 devs working on it.
We are fortunate because there is only the one instance of our "product", so we do not have to cater for deploying to multiple instances which may be at different versions.
We keep a creation script file for each object (table, view, index, stored procedure, trigger) in the database.
We avoid the use of ALTER TABLE whenever possible, preferring to rename a table, create the new one and migrate the data over. This means that we don't have to look through a history of ALTER scripts - we can always see the up to date version of every table by looking at its create script. The migration is performed by a separate migration script - this can be partly auto-generated.
Each time we do a release, we have a script which runs the create scripts / migration scripts in the appropriate order.
FYI: We use Visual SourceSafe (yuck!) for source code control.
I've been looking for a SQL Server source control tool - and came across a lot of premium versions that do the job - using SQL Server Management Studio as a plugin.
LiquiBase is a free one but i never quite got it working for my needs.
There is another free product out there though that works stand along from SSMS and scripts out objects and data to flat file.
These objects can then be pumped into a new SQL Server instance which will then re-create the database objects.
See gitSQL
Maybe you're asking for LiquiBase?
Related
I have been doing some research on the correct procedure to follow when working with both a development and live production database. The best article i have found was this one: Strategies for Database Development and Deployment, but i can not accept the idea that i have to maintain a Word document, manually, of every change i make to the DB. That seems ridiculous to me...
I use SQL Server Management Studio to manage my SQL databases both in dev and in prod. Is there a way to deploy latest changes to production WITHOUT destroying tables and data. Can someone please point me to a good procedural article on how this is done in SSMS.
Thanks
It is irresponsible to make changes to a database design without creating change scripts that are put into source control.
However, if you are already in this curcumstance, I suggest buying red_gate's SQLCompare. It will look at the two databases and script the differnces. You still can't run this willy-nilly though - sometimes you have made changes to the dev database that are not yet part of the curent version being pushed to prod and SQLCompare has no way to know this. It is far better to create the scripts as you go (Using alter table when the table currently exists so as not to disrupt existing data) and keep them in source control with the rest of code that you will be pushing at the same time.
The only right way to do it in prodiction - with or without Management Studio - prepare, check, test and run the scripts manually.
WITH FRESH BACKUP!
A common strategy is to keep an ordered set of change scripts, e.g. prefixed with date or database version, which can easily be tested on the development database by starting with a fresh backup from production. The change scripts can often be generated from SQL Server Management Studio when making changes, or could be crafted manually in case of more complex changes.
Another suggestion would be to version control the database definitions (tables, procedures etc). This can be easily achieved by using SQL Server Management Studio to generate create scripts for all objects after each update. This way you can easily compare changes made over time, or between different environments.
I would like to know how you guys deal with development database changes in groups of 2 or more devs? Do you have a global db everyone access, maybe a local copy and manually apply script changes? It would be nice to see pros and cons that you've noticed for each approach and the number of devs in your team.
Start with "Evolutionary Database Design" by Martin Fowler. This sums it up nicely
There are have been other questions about DB development that may be useful too, for example Is RedGate SQL Source Control for me?
Our approach is that everyone has their own DB, the complete DB can be created from create scripts with base data if required. All the scripts required for this are in source control.
All scripts are CREATE scripts and they reflect the current state of the database schema. Upgrades are in separate SQL files which can upgrade existing DBs from a specific version to a newer one (run sequentially). After all the updates have been applied, the schema must be identical to what you would get from running the setup scripts.
We have some tools to do this (we use SQL Server and .NET):
Scripting is done with a tool which also applies a standard formatting so that the changes are well traceable with text diff tools (and by the SCM)
A runtime module takes care of comparing the existing DB objects, run updates if required, automatically apply "non-destructive" changes, then check the DB objects again to ensure a correct migration before committing the changes
The toolset is available as open-source project (licensed under LGPL), it's called the bsn ModuleStore (note that it is limited to SQL Server 2005/2008/Azure and to .NET for the runtime part).
We use what was code named "Data Dude" - the database features in TFS and Visual Studio - to deal with this. When you "get latest" and bring in code that relies on a schema change, you also bring in the revised schemas, stored procedures etc. You rigght-click the database project and Deploy; that gets your local schema and sp in sync but doesn't overwrite your data. The job of working out the script to get you from your old schema to the new one falls to Visual Studio, not to you or your DBA. We also have "populate" scripts for things like lists of provinces and a deploy runs them for you.
So much better than the old way which always fell apart at high stress times, with people checking in code then going home and nobody knowing what columns to add to make the code work etc.
I am using github for maintaining versions and code synchronization.
We are team of two and we are located at different places.
How can we make sure that our databases are synchronized.
Update:--
I am rails developer. But these days i m working on drupal projects (where database is the center of variations). So i want to make sure that team must have a synchronized database. Also the values in various tables.
I need something which keep our data values synchronized.
Centralized database is a good solution. But things get disturbed when someone works offline
if you use visual studio then you can script your database tables, views, stored procedures and functions as .sql files from a database solution and then check those into version control as well - its what i currently do at my workplace
In you dont use visual studio then you can still script your sql as .sql files [but with more work] and then version control them as necessary
Have a look at Red Gate SQL Source Control - http://www.red-gate.com/products/SQL_Source_Control/
To be honest I've never used it, but their other software is fantastic. And if all you want to do is keep the DB schema in sync (rather than full source control) then I have used their SQL Compare product very succesfully in the past.
(ps. I don't work for them!)
You can use Sql Source Control together with Sql Data Compare to source control both: schema and data. Here is an article from redgate: Source controlling data.
These are some of the possibilities.
Using the same database. Set-up a central database where everybody can connect to. This way you are sure everybody uses the same database all the time.
After every change, export the database and commit it to the VCS. This option requires discipline and manual labor.
Use some kind of other definition of the schema. For example, Doctrine for php has the ability to build the database from a yaml definition which can be stored in the vcs. This can be easier automated then point 2.
Use some other software/script which updates the database.
I feel your pain. I had terrible trouble getting SQL Server to play nice with SVN. In the end I opted for a shared database solution. Every day I run an extensive script to backup all our schema definitions (specifically stored procedures) for version control into text files. Due to the limited number of changes this works well.
I now use this technique for our major project and personal projects too. The only negative is that it relies on being connected all the time. The other answers suggest that full database versioning is very time consuming and I tend to agree. For "live" upgrades we use the Red Gate tools, they do both schema and data compare and it works very well.
http://www.red-gate.com/products/SQL_Data_Compare/. We were using this tool for keeping databases in sync in our company. Later we had some specific demands so we had to write our own code for synchronization. Depends how complex is you database and how much changes is happening. It is much simpler if you have time when no one is working and you can lock database for syncronization.
Check out OffScale DataGrove.
This product tracks changes to the entire DB - schema and data. You can tag versions in any point in time, and return to older states of the DB with a simple command. It also allows you to create virtual, separate, copies of the same database so each team member can have his own separate DB. All the virtual copies are tracked into the same repository so it's super-easy to revert your DB to someone else's version (you simply check-out their version, just like you do with your source control). This means all your DBs can always be synchronized.
Regarding a centralized DB - just like you don't want to work on the same source code, you don't want to be working on the same DB. It means you'll constantly break each other's code and builds each time someone changes something in the DB.
I suggest that you go with a separate DB for each developer, and sync them using DataGrove.
Disclaimer - I work at OffScale :-)
Try Wizardby. This is my personal project, but I've used it in my several previous jobs with great deal of success.
Basically, it's a tool which lets you specify all changes to your database schema in a database-independent manner and then apply these changes to all your databases.
We use SQL Server 2000/2005 and Vault or SVN on most of our projects. I haven't found a decent solution for capturing database schema/proc changes in either source control system.
Our current solution is quite cumbersome and difficult to enforce (script out the object you change and commit it to the database).
We have a lot of ideas of how to tackle this problem with some custom development, but I'd rather install an existing tool (paid tools are fine).
So: how do you track your database code changes? Do you have any recommended tools?
Edit:
Thanks for all the suggestions. Due to time constraints, I'd rather not roll my own here. And most of the suggestions have the flaw that they require the dev to follow some procedure.
Instead, an ideal solution would monitor the SQL Database for changes and commit any detected changes to SCM. For example, if SQL Server had an add-on that could record any DML change with the user that made the change, then commit the script of that object to SCM, I'd be thrilled.
We talked internally about two systems:
1. In SQL 2005, use object permissions to restrict you from altering an object until you did a "checkout". Then, the checkin procedure would script it into the SCM.
2. Run a scheduled job to detect any changes and commit them (anonymously) to SCM.
It'd be nice if I could skip the user-action part and have the system handle all this automatically.
Use Visual studio database edition to script out your database. Works like a charm and you can use any Source control system, of course best if it has VS plugins. This tool has also a number of other useful features. Check them out here in this great blog post
http://www.vitalygorn.com/blog/post/2008/01/Handling-Database-easily-with-Visual-Studio-2008.aspx
or check out MSDN for the official documentation
Tracking database changes directly from SSMS is possible using various 3rd party tools. ApexSQL Source Control automatically scripts any database object that is included in versioning. Commits cannot be automatically performed by the tool. Instead, the user needs to choose which changes will be committed.
When getting changes from a repository, ApexSQL Source Control is aware of a SQL database referential integrity. Thus, it will create a synchronization scripts including all dependent objects that will be wrapped in a transactions so, either all changes will be applied in case no error is encountered, or none of the selected changes is applied. In any case, database integrity remains unaffected.
I have to say I think a visual studio database project is also a reasonable solution to the source control dilemma. If it's set up correctly you can run the scripts against the database from the IDE. If your script is old, get the latest, run it against the DB. Have a script that recreates all the objects as well if you need, new objects must be added to the this script as well by hand, but only once
I like every table, proc and function to be in it's own file.
One poor man's solution would be to add a pre-commit hook script that dumps out the latest db schema into a file and have that file committed to your SVN repository along with your code. Then, you can diff the db schema files from any revision.
I just commit the SQL-alter-Statement additional to the complete SQL-CreateDB-statement.
Rolling your own from scratch would not be very doable, but if you use a sql comparison tool like Redgate SQL Compare SDK to generate your change files for you it would not take very long to half-roll what you want and then just check those files into source control. I rolled something similar for myself to update changes from our development systems to our live systems in just a few hours.
In our environment, we never change the DB manually: all changes are done by scripts at release time, and the scripts are kept in the version control system. One important part of this procedure is to be sure that all scripts can be run again against the same DB the scripts are idempotent?) without loss of data. For example, if you add a column, make sure that you do nothing if the column is already there.
Your comment about "suggestions have the flaw that they require the dev to follow some procedure" is really a tell-tale. It's not a flaw, it's a feature. Version control helps developers in following procedures and makes the procedures less painful. If you don't want to follow procedures, you don't need version control.
In SQL2000 generate each object into it's own file, then check them all into your source control. Let your source control handle the change history.
In SQL 2005, you'll need to write a bit of code to generate all objects into separate files.
In one project I arranged by careful attention in the design that all the important data in the database can be automatically recreated from external places. At startup the application creates the database if it is missing, and populates it from external data sources, using a schema in the application source code (and hence versioned with the application). The database store name (a sqlite filename although most database managers allow multiple databases) includes a schema version, and we increase the schema version whenever we commit a schema change. This means when we restart the application to a new version with a different schema that a new database store is automatically created and populated. Should we have to revert a deployment to an old schema then the new run of the old version will be using the old database store, so we get to do fast downgrades in the event of trouble.
Essentially, the database acts like a traditional application heap, with the advantages of persistence, transaction safety, static typing (handy since we use Python) and uniqueness constraints. However, we don't worry at all about deleting the database and starting over, and people know that if they try some manual hack in the database then it will get reverted on the next deployment, much like hacks of a process state will get reverted on the next restart.
We don't need any migration scripts since we just switch database filename and restart the application and it rebuilds itself. It helps that the application instances are sharded to use one database per client. It also reduces the need for database backups.
This approach won't work if your database build from the external sources takes longer than you will allow the application to be remain down.
If you are using .Net and like the approach Rails takes with Migrations, then I would recommend Migrator.Net.
I found a nice tutorial that walks through setting it up in Visual Studio. He also provides a sample project to reference.
We developed a custom tool that updates our databases. The database schema is stored in a database-neutral XML file which is then read and processed by the tool. The schema gets stored in SVN, and we add appropriate commentary to show what was changed. It works pretty well for us.
While this kind of solution is definitely overkill for most projects, it certainly makes life easier at times.
Our dbas periodically check prod against what is in SVN and delete any objects not under source control. It only takes once before the devlopers never forget to put something in source control again.
We also do not allow anyone to move objects to prod without a script as our devs do not have prod rights this is easy to enforce.
In order to track all the change like insert update and delete there will be a lot of overhead for the SVN.
It is better to track only the ddl changes like (alter, drop, create) which changes the schema.
You can do this Schema tracking easily by creating a table and a trgger to insert data to that table.
Any time you want u can get the change status by querying from that table
There are a lots of example here and here
I wonder how you guys manage deployment of a database between 2 SQL Servers, specifically SQL Server 2005.
Now, there is a development and a live one. As this should be part of a buildscript (standard windows batch, even do with current complexity of those scripts, i might switch to PowerShell or so later), Enterprise Manager/Management Studio Express do not count.
Would you just copy the .mdf File and attach it? I am always a bit careful when working with binary data, as this seems to be a compatiblity issue (even though development and live should run the same version of the server at all time).
Or - given the lack of "EXPLAIN CREATE TABLE" in T-SQL - do you do something that exports an existing database into SQL-Scripts which you can run on the target server? If yes, is there a tool that can automatically dump a given Database into SQL Queries and that runs off the command line? (Again, Enterprise Manager/Management Studio Express do not count).
And lastly - given the fact that the live database already contains data, the deployment may not involve creating all tables but rather checking the difference in structure and ALTER TABLE the live ones instead, which may also need data verification/conversion when existing fields change.
Now, i hear a lot of great stuff about the Red Gate products, but for hobby projects, the price is a bit steep.
So, what are you using to automatically deploy SQL Server Databases from Test to Live?
I've taken to hand-coding all of my DDL (creates/alter/delete) statements, adding them to my .sln as text files, and using normal versioning (using subversion, but any revision control should work). This way, I not only get the benefit of versioning, but updating live from dev/stage is the same process for code and database - tags, branches and so on work all the same.
Otherwise, I agree redgate is expensive if you don't have a company buying it for you. If you can get a company to buy it for you though, it really is worth it!
For my projects I alternate between SQL Compare from REd Gate and the Database Publishing Wizard from Microsoft which you can download free
here.
The Wizard isn't as slick as SQL Compare or SQL Data Compare but it does the trick. One issue is that the scripts it generates may need some rearranging and/or editing to flow in one shot.
On the up side, it can move your schema and data which isn't bad for a free tool.
Don't forget Microsoft's solution to the problem: Visual Studio 2008 Database Edition. Includes tools for deploying changes to databases, producing a diff between databases for schema and/or data changes, unit tests, test data generation.
It's pretty expensive but I used the trial edition for a while and thought it was brilliant. It makes the database as easy to work with as any other piece of code.
Like Rob Allen, I use SQL Compare / Data Compare by Redgate. I also use the Database publishing wizard by Microsoft. I also have a console app I wrote in C# that takes a sql script and runs it on a server. This way you can run large scripts with 'GO' commands in it from a command line or in a batch script.
I use Microsoft.SqlServer.BatchParser.dll and Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo.dll libraries in the console application.
I work the same way Karl does, by keeping all of my SQL scripts for creating and altering tables in a text file that I keep in source control. In fact, to avoid the problem of having to have a script examine the live database to determine what ALTERs to run, I usually work like this:
On the first version, I place everything during testing into one SQL script, and treat all tables as a CREATE. This means I end up dropping and readding tables a lot during testing, but that's not a big deal early into the project (since I'm usually hacking the data I'm using at that point anyway).
On all subsequent versions, I do two things: I make a new text file to hold the upgrade SQL scripts, that contain just the ALTERs for that version. And I make the changes to the original, create a fresh database script as well. This way an upgrade just runs the upgrade script, but if we have to recreate the DB we don't need to run 100 scripts to get there.
Depending on how I'm deploying the DB changes, I'll also usually put a version table in the DB that holds the version of the DB. Then, rather than make any human decisions about which scripts to run, whatever code I have running the create/upgrade scripts uses the version to determine what to run.
The one thing this will not do is help if part of what you're moving from test to production is data, but if you want to manage structure and not pay for a nice, but expensive DB management package, is really not very difficult. I've also found it's a pretty good way of keeping mental track of your DB.
If you have a company buying it, Toad from Quest Software has this kind of management functionality built in. It's basically a two-click operation to compare two schemas and generate a sync script from one to the other.
They have editions for most of the popular databases, including of course Sql Server.
I agree that scripting everything is the best way to go and is what I advocate at work. You should script everything from DB and object creation to populating your lookup tables.
Anything you do in UI only won't translate (especially for changes... not so much for first deployments) and will end up requiring a tools like what Redgate offers.
Using SMO/DMO, it isn't too difficult to generate a script of your schema. Data is a little more fun, but still doable.
In general, I take "Script It" approach, but you might want to consider something along these lines:
Distinguish between Development and Staging, such that you can Develop with a subset of data ... this I would create a tool to simply pull down some production data, or generate fake data where security is concerned.
For team development, each change to the database will have to be coordinated amongst your team members. Schema and data changes can be intermingled, but a single script should enable a given feature. Once all your features are ready, you bundle these up in a single SQL file and run that against a restore of production.
Once your staging has cleared acceptance, you run the single SQL file again on the production machine.
I have used the Red Gate tools and they are great tools, but if you can't afford it, building the tools and working this way isn't too far from the ideal.
I'm using Subsonic's migrations mechanism so I just have a dll with classes in squential order that have 2 methods, up and down. There is a continuous integration/build script hook into nant, so that I can automate the upgrading of my database.
Its not the best thign in the world, but it beats writing DDL.
RedGate SqlCompare is a way to go in my opinion. We do DB deployment on a regular basis and since I started using that tool I have never looked back.
Very intuitive interface and saves a lot of time in the end.
The Pro version will take care of scripting for the source control integration as well.
I also maintain scripts for all my objects and data. For deploying I wrote this free utility - http://www.sqldart.com. It'll let you reorder your script files and will run the whole lot within a transaction.
I agree with keeping everything in source control and manually scripting all changes. Changes to the schema for a single release go into a script file created specifically for that release. All stored procs, views, etc should go into individual files and treated just like .cs or .aspx as far as source control goes. I use a powershell script to generate one big .sql file for updating the programmability stuff.
I don't like automating the application of schema changes, like new tables, new columns, etc. When doing a production release, I like to go through the change script command by command to make sure each one works as expected. There's nothing worse than running a big change script on production and getting errors because you forgot some little detail that didn't present itself in development.
I have also learned that indexes need to be treated just like code files and put into source control.
And you should definitely have more than 2 databases - dev and live. You should have a dev database that everybody uses for daily dev tasks. Then a staging database that mimics production and is used to do your integration testing. Then maybe a complete recent copy of production (restored from a full backup), if that is feasible, so your last round of installation testing goes against something that is as close to the real thing as possible.
I do all my database creation as DDL and then wrap that DDL into a schema maintainence class. I may do various things to create the DDL in the first place but fundamentally I do all the schema maint in code. This also means that if one needs to do non DDL things that don't map well to SQL you can write procedural logic and run it between lumps of DDL/DML.
My dbs then have a table which defines the current version so one can code a relatively straightforward set of tests:
Does the DB exist? If not create it.
Is the DB the current version? If not then run the methods, in sequence, that bring the schema up to date (you may want to prompt the user to confirm and - ideally - do backups at this point).
For a single user app I just run this in place, for a web app we currently to lock the user out if the versions don't match and have a stand alone schema maint app we run. For multi-user it will depend on the particular environment.
The advantage? Well I have a very high level of confidence that the schema for the apps that use this methodology is consistent across all instances of those applications. Its not perfect, there are issues, but it works...
There are some issues when developing in a team environment but that's more or less a given anyway!
Murph
I'm currently working the same thing to you. Not only deploying SQL Server databases from test to live but also include the whole process from Local -> Integration -> Test -> Production. So what can make me easily everyday is I do NAnt task with Red-Gate SQL Compare. I'm not working for RedGate but I have to say it is good choice.