Question related to Data Import

Hi,

I have a scenario where I either have an option of writing a VB based import routine to import "FORMATTED" data in a text file and populate it in my underlying tables (SQL2K). However someone suggested that I should use DTS.

I am not very familiar with DTS and would therefore appreciate:

1. What would be a better solution - using the VB based import routine that I was planning to have in place or use a DTS?

2. What are the benefits of using a DTS?

3. How easy is it to define/develop a DTS?

4. Aee DTSs flexible?

5. Can someone recommend a URL from where I can read more about DTS and ideally with an example which I can follow to define/develop a DTS myself?

I'll appreciate your reply. Thanks.DTS is the way to go. DTS is very functional in transforming data. Read this link for more info:
http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mssql/article.php/3086891

and also look up DTS in Books Online, and the internet

Hope this helps|||You need access to enterprise manager (to make life easier)

sql server's client side tools...

But why not use BULK INSERT with a Format file? Or bcp

I've seen DTS do wierd things...but that was back in 7.

And if your VB routine was going to do singleton inserts, I would recommend against taht...

Holy Tranny log batman...|||Thanks for your replies. I'll try out the DTS option. I am not clear what you mean by "bcp".

I have one question (for now) related to the DTS option:

If I go with the DTS approach, can I define/develop (I do know what is the correct terminology) a DTS package and then "DEPLOY" at the the user's side so that everytime the user receives a text file with a similar format he can simply "RUN" the DTS package without requiring any help?

My second related question is that if I want to use the DTS deplyment option at the end-user's machine, would that require the Enterprise Manager to be installed at the end-user's machine or can he simply invoke it in some othr manner. I have a feeling (based on my limited knowledge) that the user would require the Enterprise Manager to be installed on his/her machine but I want to confirm.

As you might have figured out, I want to put in place a solution which I can "deploy" and then after a litle bit of training, let the user(s) import the data without my involvement.

I'll appreciate your feedback based on the above.

Thanks.|||Originally posted by Joozh
Thanks for your replies. I'll try out the DTS option. I am not clear what you mean by "bcp".

I have one question (for now) related to the DTS option:

If I go with the DTS approach, can I define/develop (I do know what is the correct terminology) a DTS package and then "DEPLOY" at the the user's side so that everytime the user receives a text file with a similar format he can simply "RUN" the DTS package without requiring any help?

My second related question is that if I want to use the DTS deplyment option at the end-user's machine, would that require the Enterprise Manager to be installed at the end-user's machine or can he simply invoke it in some othr manner. I have a feeling (based on my limited knowledge) that the user would require the Enterprise Manager to be installed on his/her machine but I want to confirm.

As you might have figured out, I want to put in place a solution which I can "deploy" and then after a litle bit of training, let the user(s) import the data without my involvement.

I'll appreciate your feedback based on the above.

Thanks.

Once you create the DTS package, make sure it's portable, ie, it's can be used on virtually any computer. Read the Following article portability of DTS packages, it will give you some idea.

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/kfeit/portabledtspackages.asp

Secondly, once the DTS package is completed you can schedule a job for the package. This job can run on any server. So you can transform/format files or load the data from files to tables etc. So the user would just see the finished product of the DTS packages.

Hope this helps.

Question Regarding Scenario On DataMining

Hi to all

I want to know how achieve the following scenario, I will highly encourage if anyone knows the solution please mention it through steps. The scenario is I have a table named “CreditCardTable ” with following schema , the table is pretty much what one expect from a simple credit card application that will present form to user who fills the application of credit card and data going to be filled into the table. Later an analyst will review the data and will be accepting or rejecting the Credit Card along with some other fields as seen in the schema.

--Schema --
CustomerName Bigint
Age int
DOB DateTime
LimitAssigned Bigint
Analystname varchar
Salary varchar
Gender bit
Qualification varchar
Country varchar
JobTitle varchar
MartialStatus varchar
IsApproved bit
IsDeclined bit

Now what I want is that by using Microsoft Detaining Features after giving it the data t should purpose analyst the solution i-e (reject / approve ) the credit card application . Now I gather than there are many algorithms in SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services that can be used (Decision Trees , Association Rules ) , I research on the two I just mentioned and want to use Decision Tree for this purpose , but there is a bottleneck that is mentioned in a book named “Detaining with SQL Server 2005 by Wiely”. It says that the rules that the Decision Tree will build and use are not available to end user in contrast to Association Rule algorithm which provide the rules. I essentially need the rules by which the decision has been made. Please I really need help on these issue to summarize I need the following

1) With the table “CreditCardTable” I need to perform Decision Trees and Association Rules Algorithm on it , please provide me steps to do so , moreover please also mention how to specify Query (DMX I think) to get the final result i-e approve or reject based on the data .

2) The rules on basis of which the Algorithm makes it decision, please provide insights on how to achieve this by both Decision Trees and Association Rules Algorithm.

I really need an urgent reply on this , you can also email me at razi_rais@.yahoo.com , thanks for your feedback.

Here is a tutorial for building a mining model: http://www.sqlserverdatamining.com/DMCommunity/Tutorials/Links_LinkRedirector.aspx?id=60 . Note that the site requires you to create a (free) user account in order to download documents. One of the examples in the tutorial explains how to create a decision trees model in order to predict whether a customer is a Bike Buyer or not. I think that example is very similar to your problem. I would expect the Decision Tree algorithm to do a much better job in this case than Association Rules, but there is no harm in trying both.

One more suggestion: if IsApproved and IsDeclined describe basically the same thing (i.e., IsApproved = 1 - IsDeclined), I would ignore the IsDeclined column and only build a mining model with IsApproved as target. This way, the model will predict 1 or 0 for the IsApproved column, and you can conclude that 0 means IsDeclined.

On the query issue: there are two kinds of queries you might be interested in executing:

1) The so-called 'singleton' query -- allows executing a prediction for a new row. Example:

SELECT IsApproved FROM MyModel [NATURAL] PREDICTION JOIN (SELECT 30 as Age, 50000 as LimitAssigned ..... ) AS T [ON...]

This executes a prediction against a customer represented by the fields in the inner select statement

2) The 'batch' query -- allows executing predictions against a table or view (a collection of rows) and it is optimized for performance. Syntax:

SELECT IsApproved FROM MyModel [NATURAL] PREDICTION JOIN OPENQUERY(DataSource, 'Query') AS T [ON...]

The query builder tool inside BI Dev Studio can be used to generate both kinds of queries. Note that the prediction query is independent of the algorithm. That means that you can use these queries with both Association Rules and Decision Trees.

On the last issue (rules), the answer is different, depending on the algorith. Association Rules is designed to construct rules. The rules can be inspected visually in the viewer. In the case of Decision Trees, the rule would be the path from the root of the tree to the leaf node that is used in prediction. Clicking on a decision trees node in the model viewer will present the information for that node, including the rule (in the form of Node Path from the root to that node)

For decision trees, you can extract the rule that leads to each individual prediction. Details here: http://www.sqlserverdatamining.com/DMCommunity/TipsNTricks/784.aspx

|||

Thanks Bogdan for your prompt reply I will be reviewing the links you provided .Regarding the Rules I reviewed description at http://www.sqlserverdatamining.com/DMCommunity/TipsNTricks/784.aspx , now can you please tell me is there any way to get whole set of rules not only the branch executed for making the decison in the form of xml. I mean like say after the mining algorithm executes and hence trained on the data can we write some function that return us whole rules (preferbly in form of xml) that will be used to make the design.

Best Regards

Razi

|||

You can try

SELECT NODE_RULE, NODE_CAPTION FROM MyModel.CONTENT

This will return the rules and the XMl representation of the rules for each tree node. However, you need to manually analyze the distribution for each node to see what the prediction is for that rule (the returned results contain the left hand side of the rule).

|||

Hmm what i want to know is when you guys want to capture complete rules and want to do it without mannual interction is there is any possiblity to do so ? I mean is microsoft provide any Object Model on top of this so that I can capture whole rules like

If <xyz> then <abc>

If <abc> then <pqr>

If <pqr> then <swf>

I think there might be any possibility to acieve this or is plainly impossible to achieve using Datamining in SQL 2005.

One more thing i want to ask is the query u mentioned

SELECT NODE_RULE, NODE_CAPTION FROM MyModel.CONTENT is independent of Algorithm used ? If it is then which model is more effective among DST and AR for prediction purposes specially in Credit Card Application Scenarion that i mentioned in the first post , you mentioned DS but can please amplify why and how to capture its inner workings?

|||

It really depends on what you want to do. Association rules provides rules of the sort

A,B,C -> D

Decision trees gives you rules of the form

If A and B and C then D

In both cases rules are probabilistic.

All data mining algorithms expose their content though the content schema rowset which has an specified form, and each algorithm uses that form as appropriate for that algorithm. For example, the content for a tree model is a parent-child rowset with each row indicating a node in the tree. For Association Rules, each row is either an itemset or a rule. You can access the content through the queries like Bogdan specifies, or using the object model with ADOMD.Net. The object model essentially wraps the content and provides easier navigation, but it's the same. On SQL Server Data MIning.com there is a sample viewer that allows you to view the raw content in an easier way, and it contains source code. That may be a good place to start.

Question on security

Scenario: We have an Sql Server system and want to set up a payroll system.
We have about 30 tables in this database. We are now going to be handling
outside companies payroll information.
Setup 1: One of the fields in the tables would be a company code. This
would logically separate company A's data from company B's data.
Our question is on security. How secure is the data if it is all in one
database? If someone were to hack the database, they could potentially have
access to every companies data.
Setup 2: One way around that would be to replicate the 30 tables for each
company we bring on board. If we were to have 100 companies, we would have
100 databases and 300 tables.
This, of course, would be a problem as we make changes to the tables, since
we would have to make the changes to the same tables in each of the 100
databases.
One benefit to this setup is that if someone were to hack one database, they
wouldn't necessarilly have access to other companies data since they would
be in other database, even though all the databases reside on the same
machine under the same Sql Server.
This brings up the issue of multiple machines - which would really be going
overboard.
I am just trying to use due diligence here to see what my possible problems
are and whether we could be over thinking the problem.
Payroll data is very sensitive and we need to make sure we are going far
enough to protect it, but not too far to make it unwieldy.
The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
databases, searches and updates might be faster.
Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
questions.
Thanks,
Tom.
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:57:48 -0800, "tshad"
<tscheiderich@.ftsolutions.com> wrote:
>Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
>questions.
Old questions, everyone chooses their own answers.
You can partition tables and use views to restrict users to their own
company's rows and stuff like that, if you want to keep things in a
single database and/or single tables.
There are always tradeoffs between convenience, performance, and
security. What's the old cliche, "good, fast, cheap - choose two".
J.
|||> The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
> database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
> databases, searches and updates might be faster.
>
No, don't use separate databases. Nowadays you can have a very big database
and if you properly designed it you will not have any problem in terms of
perfomance. You probably would not want to maintain many databases all
system calagos and...
If you defined indexes on the tables and do provide tuning the database
searches and updates might be faster so it has not to do with having many
databases.
Also, I'd remove a guest account and make sure that all may users have
appropriate permissions to access the tables.
Don't GRANT them access to underlying tables instead create views to select
data.
Visit on this web site to read more about security of the database
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server_..._practices.htm
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/row_level_s..._databases.htm
"tshad" <tscheiderich@.ftsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:OgCxbGA2EHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Scenario: We have an Sql Server system and want to set up a payroll
system.
> We have about 30 tables in this database. We are now going to be handling
> outside companies payroll information.
> Setup 1: One of the fields in the tables would be a company code. This
> would logically separate company A's data from company B's data.
> Our question is on security. How secure is the data if it is all in one
> database? If someone were to hack the database, they could potentially
have
> access to every companies data.
> Setup 2: One way around that would be to replicate the 30 tables for each
> company we bring on board. If we were to have 100 companies, we would
have
> 100 databases and 300 tables.
> This, of course, would be a problem as we make changes to the tables,
since
> we would have to make the changes to the same tables in each of the 100
> databases.
> One benefit to this setup is that if someone were to hack one database,
they
> wouldn't necessarilly have access to other companies data since they would
> be in other database, even though all the databases reside on the same
> machine under the same Sql Server.
> This brings up the issue of multiple machines - which would really be
going
> overboard.
> I am just trying to use due diligence here to see what my possible
problems
> are and whether we could be over thinking the problem.
> Payroll data is very sensitive and we need to make sure we are going far
> enough to protect it, but not too far to make it unwieldy.
> The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
> database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
> databases, searches and updates might be faster.
> Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
> questions.
> Thanks,
> Tom.
>

Question on security

Scenario: We have an Sql Server system and want to set up a payroll system.
We have about 30 tables in this database. We are now going to be handling
outside companies payroll information.
Setup 1: One of the fields in the tables would be a company code. This
would logically separate company A's data from company B's data.
Our question is on security. How secure is the data if it is all in one
database? If someone were to hack the database, they could potentially have
access to every companies data.
Setup 2: One way around that would be to replicate the 30 tables for each
company we bring on board. If we were to have 100 companies, we would have
100 databases and 300 tables.
This, of course, would be a problem as we make changes to the tables, since
we would have to make the changes to the same tables in each of the 100
databases.
One benefit to this setup is that if someone were to hack one database, they
wouldn't necessarilly have access to other companies data since they would
be in other database, even though all the databases reside on the same
machine under the same Sql Server.
This brings up the issue of multiple machines - which would really be going
overboard.
I am just trying to use due diligence here to see what my possible problems
are and whether we could be over thinking the problem.
Payroll data is very sensitive and we need to make sure we are going far
enough to protect it, but not too far to make it unwieldy.
The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
databases, searches and updates might be faster.
Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
questions.
Thanks,
Tom.On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:57:48 -0800, "tshad"
<tscheiderich@.ftsolutions.com> wrote:
>Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
>questions.
Old questions, everyone chooses their own answers.
You can partition tables and use views to restrict users to their own
company's rows and stuff like that, if you want to keep things in a
single database and/or single tables.
There are always tradeoffs between convenience, performance, and
security. What's the old cliche, "good, fast, cheap - choose two".
J.|||> The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
> database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
> databases, searches and updates might be faster.
>
No, don't use separate databases. Nowadays you can have a very big database
and if you properly designed it you will not have any problem in terms of
perfomance. You probably would not want to maintain many databases all
system calagos and...
If you defined indexes on the tables and do provide tuning the database
searches and updates might be faster so it has not to do with having many
databases.
Also, I'd remove a guest account and make sure that all may users have
appropriate permissions to access the tables.
Don't GRANT them access to underlying tables instead create views to select
data.
Visit on this web site to read more about security of the database
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server...t_practices.htm
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/ row_level...as
es.htm
"tshad" <tscheiderich@.ftsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:OgCxbGA2EHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Scenario: We have an Sql Server system and want to set up a payroll
system.
> We have about 30 tables in this database. We are now going to be handling
> outside companies payroll information.
> Setup 1: One of the fields in the tables would be a company code. This
> would logically separate company A's data from company B's data.
> Our question is on security. How secure is the data if it is all in one
> database? If someone were to hack the database, they could potentially
have
> access to every companies data.
> Setup 2: One way around that would be to replicate the 30 tables for each
> company we bring on board. If we were to have 100 companies, we would
have
> 100 databases and 300 tables.
> This, of course, would be a problem as we make changes to the tables,
since
> we would have to make the changes to the same tables in each of the 100
> databases.
> One benefit to this setup is that if someone were to hack one database,
they
> wouldn't necessarilly have access to other companies data since they would
> be in other database, even though all the databases reside on the same
> machine under the same Sql Server.
> This brings up the issue of multiple machines - which would really be
going
> overboard.
> I am just trying to use due diligence here to see what my possible
problems
> are and whether we could be over thinking the problem.
> Payroll data is very sensitive and we need to make sure we are going far
> enough to protect it, but not too far to make it unwieldy.
> The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
> database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
> databases, searches and updates might be faster.
> Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
> questions.
> Thanks,
> Tom.
>

Question on security

Scenario: We have an Sql Server system and want to set up a payroll system.
We have about 30 tables in this database. We are now going to be handling
outside companies payroll information.
Setup 1: One of the fields in the tables would be a company code. This
would logically separate company A's data from company B's data.
Our question is on security. How secure is the data if it is all in one
database? If someone were to hack the database, they could potentially have
access to every companies data.
Setup 2: One way around that would be to replicate the 30 tables for each
company we bring on board. If we were to have 100 companies, we would have
100 databases and 300 tables.
This, of course, would be a problem as we make changes to the tables, since
we would have to make the changes to the same tables in each of the 100
databases.
One benefit to this setup is that if someone were to hack one database, they
wouldn't necessarilly have access to other companies data since they would
be in other database, even though all the databases reside on the same
machine under the same Sql Server.
This brings up the issue of multiple machines - which would really be going
overboard.
I am just trying to use due diligence here to see what my possible problems
are and whether we could be over thinking the problem.
Payroll data is very sensitive and we need to make sure we are going far
enough to protect it, but not too far to make it unwieldy.
The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
databases, searches and updates might be faster.
Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
questions.
Thanks,
Tom.On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:57:48 -0800, "tshad"
<tscheiderich@.ftsolutions.com> wrote:
>Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
>questions.
Old questions, everyone chooses their own answers.
You can partition tables and use views to restrict users to their own
company's rows and stuff like that, if you want to keep things in a
single database and/or single tables.
There are always tradeoffs between convenience, performance, and
security. What's the old cliche, "good, fast, cheap - choose two".
J.|||> The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
> database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
> databases, searches and updates might be faster.
>
No, don't use separate databases. Nowadays you can have a very big database
and if you properly designed it you will not have any problem in terms of
perfomance. You probably would not want to maintain many databases all
system calagos and...
If you defined indexes on the tables and do provide tuning the database
searches and updates might be faster so it has not to do with having many
databases.
Also, I'd remove a guest account and make sure that all may users have
appropriate permissions to access the tables.
Don't GRANT them access to underlying tables instead create views to select
data.
Visit on this web site to read more about security of the database
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/sql_server_security_best_practices.htm
http://vyaskn.tripod.com/row_level_security_in_sql_server_databases.htm
"tshad" <tscheiderich@.ftsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:OgCxbGA2EHA.2112@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Scenario: We have an Sql Server system and want to set up a payroll
system.
> We have about 30 tables in this database. We are now going to be handling
> outside companies payroll information.
> Setup 1: One of the fields in the tables would be a company code. This
> would logically separate company A's data from company B's data.
> Our question is on security. How secure is the data if it is all in one
> database? If someone were to hack the database, they could potentially
have
> access to every companies data.
> Setup 2: One way around that would be to replicate the 30 tables for each
> company we bring on board. If we were to have 100 companies, we would
have
> 100 databases and 300 tables.
> This, of course, would be a problem as we make changes to the tables,
since
> we would have to make the changes to the same tables in each of the 100
> databases.
> One benefit to this setup is that if someone were to hack one database,
they
> wouldn't necessarilly have access to other companies data since they would
> be in other database, even though all the databases reside on the same
> machine under the same Sql Server.
> This brings up the issue of multiple machines - which would really be
going
> overboard.
> I am just trying to use due diligence here to see what my possible
problems
> are and whether we could be over thinking the problem.
> Payroll data is very sensitive and we need to make sure we are going far
> enough to protect it, but not too far to make it unwieldy.
> The other question would be whether maybe having all the data in one
> database might slow down the response too much where if we had separate
> databases, searches and updates might be faster.
> Just looking for ideas from others who may have wrestled with these
> questions.
> Thanks,
> Tom.
>

Question on multiserver environment in SQL Server 2005

I am creating a backup strategy for our non-production SQL Server 2005 data. We wish to utiliza the Master/Target Server scenario avaible in SQL Server 2005 with events directed to the Master Server. The question I have is what is the symptoms from the Target Servers if the Master Server fails and is unavailable for whatever reason there might be? I can change the event notification back to local server, but what other impact is there and are there any recommendations as to handle a Master Server outage so Maintenance plans can continue to execute as scheduled on Target Servers.

Thank you!

Here's a response, but one that you won't like. Virtually nobody I know uses the Master/Target option. I am sure there must be some people who do, but it is rare. It is not used because the feature is not very robust or flexible.

Most people use a third-party monitoring program to accomplish what are want to do. There are many available. In addition, there are various third-party backup programs that include backup monitoring built-in.

Question on multiserver environment in SQL Server 2005

I am creating a backup strategy for our non-production SQL Server 2005 data. We wish to utiliza the Master/Target Server scenario avaible in SQL Server 2005 with events directed to the Master Server. The question I have is what is the symptoms from the Target Servers if the Master Server fails and is unavailable for whatever reason there might be? I can change the event notification back to local server, but what other impact is there and are there any recommendations as to handle a Master Server outage so Maintenance plans can continue to execute as scheduled on Target Servers.

Thank you!

Here's a response, but one that you won't like. Virtually nobody I know uses the Master/Target option. I am sure there must be some people who do, but it is rare. It is not used because the feature is not very robust or flexible.

Most people use a third-party monitoring program to accomplish what are want to do. There are many available. In addition, there are various third-party backup programs that include backup monitoring built-in.

Question on Multiple Parent-Child Hierarchies

Hi all,

I have a business scenario which is shown in the below hierachy which has 4 levels. Typically the fact table will hold data at the Project manager Level i.e Level 4. I want to implement a solution in SSAS 2005 such that it can create multiple parent child hierarchy

Can you please provide me with a data model whcih can do this?

I am aware of Many to Many dimensions but not sure how it can be implemented in SSAS 2005 based on the person logging into the cube i.e it will have an Employee Table with LOGIN ID.

Scenario 1:

Mgr1 can execute projects under Business CIO1 and Business CIO2, i.e. cross hierarchy is also possible.

Scenario 2:

A CIO at level 2 i.e. CIO1 can have horizontal level access of CIO2 also even though members of CIO2 are not reporting to CIO1.

CEO

/ \

/ \

/ \

CIO1 CIO2

/ \

/ \

/ \

Business CIO1 Business CIO2

/ \

/ \

/ \

Mgr1 Mgr2

Please treat this as urgent as i need to implement this as soon as possible for the security design

Regards

Sai

I do not fully understand the diagram you present in your question. Are you saying you have a member who may have multiple parents?

Regarding parent-child hierarchies in general, you can have only 1 per dimension. This is enough for most users. If you have a fixed number of levels and data associated with just the leaf-level of the hierarchy, you can implement your solution as a standard hierarchy. If you truly have two parent-child hierarchies, my advice would be to implement two dimensions, each with a single parent-child hierarchy.

B.

|||

Hi Bryan,

Yes am saying about a member having multiple parents. Can you please let me know how this can be achieved and based on the login ID I need to filter the members and fact data. Do you have a solution or any data model which can support this.

Regards

Sai Krishna

|||

If a member is part of independent parent-child hiearchies, you would need to implement two dimensions. Each dimension would house one of the parent-child hierarchies.

If a member may have multiple parents and those parents may have multiple parents and there is no logical/topical separation between these relationships, I'm not sure of a way to proceed. This kind of relationship is referred to as a network relationship and I do not believe SSAS supports this.

B.

Question on Data out of sync

Greetings,
Here is the scenario: Server A is Prod, Server B is reporting or
history
Server A does Transactional replication to Server B. Server A gets
records purged at the given point of retention. So as you can tell
Server B will have much more data than Server A. Today, I get the
dreaded call of that data in server A does not seem to be at Server B.
We may have had some issues with replication a couple of weeks ago but
it appeared that they were corrected and replication has been working
fine since.
So , to my questions
Is there any way of pushing over all data on Server A to B to make
sure they are in sync without losing the older data as well?
Any good way of comparing the data in Server A to Server B without
having to go row by row through each table?
I am afraid that we may be out of synch and would like to recify it
without having to drop all replication, bcp out and then bcp back in
to get them back in sync. As you can imagine that is a major headache
and would be my last resort. Any and all ideas are welcome.
Thanks,
MM
You could also have a look at Innovartis DB Ghost at
http://www.innovartis.co.uk/ which can compare & synchronize your
database schema AND data (plus build, verify & version control). I have
found you can use SQL Enterprise Manager to generate scripts to quickly
drop & re-create replication and run DB Ghost to ship your missing rows.
John McGrath MCSE
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!