Newbie to liquibase here. We have a requirement to deploy same changes to multiple databases in amazon RDS.
What will be the best way to deploy? Using different change logs for different databases and include them in one master changeLog or using a single changeLog file and use context tag in changeSet? I read couple other articles but not able to find a concrete solution.
And also we have .dll files to deploy. Do we convert them to .sql and then use tag or is there any tags for .dll files?
Note: we are not using any java/maven application.
the answer for your post depends on what type of deployment you are doing. There could be a simple pipeline where you want the same changes made to the different databases, or subset of changes on different pipeline database (eg dev, test, prod)
Liquibase do not work on .dll file (binary or complied files). Liquibase works only for text based files (sql, json, yaml and xml). You can read more on it here
Related
I switched to Corda Enterprise mainly to try how it handles automated database migration.
In the documentation here it says tools-database-manager generates only SQL version of Liquibase script for initial DB and SQL version is Database specific so should not be used for production.
But it is possible to generate the XML also with liqubase cmd using this command:
/snap/bin/liquibase --url="jdbc:h2:tcp://localhost:10039/node" --driver=org.h2.Driver --classpath=/home/corda/Downloads/h2.jar generateChangeLog
which I did, and then I had to remove all the chnagelogs which are related to corda internal tables, and left only the ones that are my own and it seems everything works.
So the question is - may this approach have some hidden dangers that I don't know. Why otherwise Corda team developed tools-database-manager, and why they don't yet support xml generation with tools-database-manager?
And this leads to another question - what if I for example forget to include one of my tables in the initial script? Seems corda does not complain about it. Won't my table be created? Will I be able to ever migrate that table if it is missing in the initial script?
Firstly tools-database-manager is a helper tool available to make it easy for developers to perform database migration.
Let’s say you have 2 nodes in your network, each using a different database. PartyA uses PostgreSQL and PartyB uses Oracle. If PartyA uses this tool to create the migration script by connecting to PostgreSQL, this will out SQL statements specific to PostgreSQL.
Hence this is not portable and hence it's said the generated script is database specific.
Also, you do not want to trust a script and fire it directly on your production database, it contains DDL statements, so it is strongly recommended that every time a script is generated, make sure you know what the script is doing by manually looking into it.
There are a lot of enhancements going on in this space, supporting XML for migration script being one of them.
As mentioned earlier, you should manually look at the migration script. If you forget to add one of your table, Corda will not complain. It will fail sometime later when from within your code you try to access this table.
Yes, you can stop the node and create the table again by adding a create table script.
I'm new with Pentaho and I'm trying to set up an automatic deployment process for the pentaho business analytics platform repository, but I'm having troubles to find out how to proceed with the data sources.
I would like to do export/import all the data sources, the same that here is explained with the repository (Reporting, Analyzer, Dashboards, Solution Files...) but with the data connections, mondrian files, schemas....
I know there's way to backup and restore the entire repository (explained here), but that's not the way I want to proceed, since the entire repository could contain undesired changes for production.
This would need to be with command line or rest system or some other thing that be triggered by Jenkins.
Did you try import-export with the -ds(DataSource) qualifier ? This will include the data connection, mondrian schema and metadata models.
Otherwise, you can import everything, unzip, filter according a certain logic (to be defined by the guy in charge of the deployment), zip again and export it to prod. A half day project with the Pentaho Data Integrator.
Today I maintain project that has really messy DB that need a lot of refactor and publish on clients machines.
I know that I could add a SQL Server Database project that contains just scripts of the database and creates a .dacpac file that allows me to change clients databases automatically.
Also I know that I could just add an .mdf file to the App_Data or even to Solution_Data folder and have my database there. I suppose that localDb that already exists allows me to startup my solution without SQL Server
And atlast i know that Entity Framework exist with it's own migrations. But i don't want to use it, besouse i can't add and change indexes with it's migrations and i don't have anought flexibility when i need to describe difficult migrations scenarios.
My goals:
Generate migration scripts to clients DB's automaticaly.
Make my solution self-contained, that any new Programmer that came to project don't even need to install SQL Server on his machine.
Be able to update local (development) base in 1-2 clicks.
Be able to move back in history of db changes (I have TFS server)
Be able to have clean (only with dictionaries or lookup tables) db in solution with up to date DB scheme.
Additionally i want to be able to update my DB model (EF or .dbml) automatically or very easy way.
So what I what to ask:
What's a strengths and weaknesses of using this 2 approaches if I want to achive my goals?
Can be that I should use sort of combination of this tools?
Or don't I know about other existing tool from MS?
Is there a way to update my DAL model from this DB?
What's a strengths and weaknesses of using this 2 approaches if I want to achive my goals?
Using a database project allows you to version control all of the database objects. You can publish to various database instances and roll out changes incrementally, rather than having to drop and recreate the database, thus preserving data. These changes can be in the form of a dacpac, a SQL script, or done right through the VS interface. You gain a lot of control over deployments using pre- and post-deployment scripts and publishing profiles. Developers will be required to install SQL Server (the developer/express edition is usually good enough).
LocalDB is a little easier to work with -- you can make your changes directly in the database without having to publish. LocalDB doesn't have a built-in publish process for pushing changes to other instances. No SQL Server installation required.
Use a database project if you need version control for your database objects, if you have multiple users concurrently making changes, or if you have multiple applications that use the same database. Use LocalDB if none of those conditions apply or for small apps that require their own standalone database.
Can be that I should use sort of combination of this tools?
Yes. According to Kevin's comment below, "If the Database Project is set as your startup project, hitting F5 will automatically deploy it to LocalDB. You don't even need a publish profile in this case."
Or don't I know about other existing tool from MS?
Entity Framework's Code First approach comes close.
Is there a way to update my DAL model from this DB?
Entity Framework's POCO generator works well unless you make changes to your DAL classes, then those changes get lost the next time you run the generator.
There is a new tool called SqlSharpener which can generate classes from the SQL files in a database project. I have not used it so I cannot vouch for it but it looks promising.
One way for generating client script for DB changes is to use database modeling tool like ERWin Which have a free community edition. The best way to meet your database version control requirement and easy script generation is Redgate SQL Source Control. Using Redgate tool you will meet the first five goals mentioned. Moreover, you can now update EF Model by single click after changing DB schema (i.e. Database first approach) as required in goal 6.
I do not recommend using LocalDB at all. It always make issues with source control like "DB File is in use and can't commit...” In addition, the developer in the project will not have common set of updated data to work on unless a developer add test data to the database and ask others to get latest version and overwrite their own database Or generate update script by the previous mentioned tool and ask every developer to run it on his localDB.
The best way in your situation is to use SQL Server on network. A master version that all the developers use. Since you have version control on the database using previously mentioned tool, you can rollback any buggy change in the database server.
If you think that RedGate tool is expensive for the budget of your project. A second approach is to generate single SQL file from your database that has all database object and the other developers update the SQL file in source control per their changes. This can be done easily by using schema compare tool in visual studio and appending the generated script to SQL file in the source control. With EF DB First approach, you will not have to add many migration classes as in EF Code first.
I have an existing database and have used the generateChangeLog command line to create the initial changelog. This works fine :-)
But now I want the developers to use all the tools/processes they know/use already to develop the database and code and use a script to generate any incremental change sets as appropriate.
That is: do a diff against the current state of the developer's database (url/username/password in the properties file) using the current changelog (changeLogFile in the properties file) as the base reference.
There seems no easy way to do this - the best I've come up with is:
Create a new temporary database.
Use liquibase to initialise the temp database (to what is currently in the changelog) by overriding the connection url: liquibase --url=jdbc:mysql://localhost:3306/tempbase update
Use liquibase to generate a changeset in the changelog by diff'ing the two databases:
liquibase --referenceUrl=jdbc:mysql://localhost:3306/tempbase --referenceUsername=foo --referencePassword=baz diffChangeLog
Drop the temporary database.
Synchronise the changeset: liquibase changelogSync
but there must be a better way...
You are right that liquibase cannot compare a changelog file with a database. The only real option is to compare your developer database with an actual liquibase-managed database, or at least one temporarily created.
What I would suggest as the better way is to consider shifting the developers to author liquibase changeSets in the first place. It is different tooling than they may be used to, but it has the huge advantage that they will know that the change they wanted to make is the one that will make it all the way to production. Any diff-based process (such as using diffChangeLog) will usually guess right about what changed, but not always and those differences are often not noticed until into production.
Liquibase has various features such as formatted SQL changelogs that are designed to make the transition from developers working directly against their database to tracking changes through Liquibase because once that transition is made many things get much easier.
With Liquibase Pro you can create a snapshot file that accomplishes the same thing. And then use the snapshot file to compare your database updates.
https://www.liquibase.org/documentation/snapshot.html
I mention Pro because it takes care of stored logic comparisons as well.
I have quite old application with current database (on MSSQL but it does not matter). I scripted it completely with all required static data. Now I want to introduce DB change only via update scripts. So each function, each SP will be placed in stand-alone file and all schema update scripts will be stored in files named like 'SomeProduct01_0001' what means that this script belongs to product SomeProduct, sprint 1 and it is first schema update script.
I know that each script must be absolutely re-runnable, but anyway I want to have functionality to combine these scripts into one based on DB version (stored in DB table).
What common best practices there is to handle bunches of update scripts?
What is better - implement version anylyzis in collector
(bat or exe file) or add some SQL header to each file? From other point of view I am already have version - it will consist of sprint identifier and script identifier, not sure that it is ok to duplicate this information in script header.
How to skip file content if user tries to apply it to newer database but keep
availability combine this script with any other to perform updates
of other old database?
How to avoid database conflicts if combined scripts operates columns/table which still does not exists in database but will be created byt this script (for example, in line 10 table created and in line 60 it is used in trigger or constraint, as I know script will not be validated)? Maybe wrap in EXEC('') entire script? What I need to escape besides sigle quote characters?
UPD: As David Tanzer asnwered it is better to use ready solutions for DB migrations, so it may be best solution for cases like mine. It was not and answer exactly for my question, but it is suitable for new solutions.
You don't have to implement this yourself, there are tools that do it. Take a look at dbmaintain, it provides almost exactly the functionality you described:
http://www.dbmaintain.org/overview.html
I know of and have worked with several teams who use it to manage their database schemas in all their environments: Development, Testing, Staging and Production.
http://flywaydb.org/ seems to be another tool to do this, and it has even more features. They even have a comparison of multiple tools on their homepage (including dbmaintain)