I need to transfer data from one SQL server db to another SQL server db (limited tables) on different servers , I want to avoid transaction replication due to bad experiences already.
What are the alternate approaches to move data near real time in sql server.
Thanks.
Related
I'm building a monitoring tool which analyzes information in some sql tables and creates some charts and alerts based on some configurable criterias. However the underlying application is now getting some errors. I think it's because my queries are rather intensive on the tables which causes them to be locked for some amount of time and my idea of a work around is to synchronize the tables to a monitoring database and do my operations there.
Do you have any other ideas? And if I do the sync, whats the best way of syncing tables in SQL server? I prefer if the sync is as close to real-time as possible.
If you are running SQL Server 2008 R2 or above, Transactional Replication is usually a good fit for this type of scenarios and can support near real time synchronization. Here are few links to get familiar with Replication
Overview of replication
Use of replication for data warehousing and reporting applications.
The other solution is to Log ship the transactional database to reporting database.But
Log shipping is asynchronous operation, so the state of data in reporting database will be behind that of the data in transactional database.
You need to log ship the entire database even if you end up using only couple of tables.
The reporting database is not available when it is restoring from the transactional database.
so that would not match to your requirements.
I have a local SQL Server database with many tables. I need to transfer data to a remote SQL Server database using vb.net, and task should be run every 2 hr from application. How is it possible to do this? Please suggest the best way for this.
I think the better way is replication. i don't know the possibilities in SQL Server but it works great in mysql. if you enables the replication in two database(Master- Slave) what ever be the changes you have made in the master will simultaneously in the slave. there is possibilities for Bi-Directional Replication in MySQL.
SQL Server provides various types of replication to extend the possibilities. this article helps you to establish replication in Sql Server
I have two SQL Server databases that are being used for my application.
The issue is that now we have decided to move one of the databases to another new server due to performance issues.
What's the best method to ensure all the joins in the SQL queries will work correctly? Do I need to update each join between the databases to so it can reference the database on the new server?
I have already updated web.config with the change but this wont affect the joins in the queries
Any advice would be great
Thanks
For this you will need to configure the second server as a linked server: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-GB/library/ms188279.aspx
Queries on the first server can then be updated to access tables on the second.
Be aware though, any queries that join tables across the two servers will usually be very slow - more so if the tables have large numbers of rows.
I want to understand the best approach for SQL Server architecture on production environment.
Here is my problem:
I have database which has on average around 20,000 records being inserted every second in various tables.
We have reports also implemented for the same, now what's happening is whenever reports is searched by user, performance of other application steeps down.
We have implemented
Table Partitioning
Indexing
And all other required things.
My question is: can anyone suggest an architecture that have different SQL Server databases for reports and application, and they can sync themselves online every time when new data is entered in master SQL Server?
Some what like Master and Slave Architecture. I understand Master and Slave architecture, however need to get more idea around it.
Our main tables are having around 40 millions rows (table partitioning done)
In SQL Server 2008R2 you have database mirroring and replication available, which will keep two databases in sync.
A schema which is efficient for OLTP is unlikely to be efficient for large volume reporting. The 'live' and 'reporting' databases should have different schema with an ETL process moving data from one to the other. I'd would like to negotiate with the business just how synchronised the reporting database needs to be. If the reports are processing large amounts of data they will take some time to run so a lag in data replication will not be noticed, I would suggest. In extremis you could construct a solution using Service Broker to move the data and processing on the reporting server to distribute it amonst the reporting tables.
The numbers you quote (20,000 inserts per second, 40 millions rows in largest table) suggests a record doesn't reside in the DB for long. You would have a significant load performing DELETEs. Optimising these out of peak hours could be sufficient to solve your problems.
I have a online Database which will be updated Daily from various Sources.
I need to have a local Database with some tables from Server Database which have to check for any changes or new rows in tables in server and update the local Database for particular Intervals of Time. How can I Achieve this???
You may want to look into SQL Server Replication.
Replication will manage the data synchronization between the two copies of your database. You can configure replication for any tables in the database, including all tables. Replication will take care of checking for updates, adds and deletes from the Server Database and transfer the changes to the local database.
You can setup replication to update the local database at near-real-time or you can schedule periodic updates.
Replication is a high-maintenance solution. It's designed to maintain two copies of the same database with significant reliability. This makes replication a good solution when you must avoid data problems or recover from problems with little to no data loss.
If you don't require the high-maintenance solution, then SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) may be a good alternative. With SSIS, you develop the data transfer and data management solution. Along with managing data problems, you design the solution to identify data adds, deletes and updates.