I am working on a desktop application(WPF) which is using sql server database to store and fetch the data. Now due to change in user requirement, there are some extra columns added in some tables and I have made changes in NHibernate mapping classes as well and application is ready for new release.
Now if I make database related changes in Production environment, the users who are using old version of the application will get NHibernate exception since the mappings are changed.
Is there any solution to avoid these kind of scenarios? Please need suggestions.
You should need to do manually. I have experience like this case.
1.Take backup for those table in production server which tables are all you changed mapping and altered new columns.
2.Drop those tables from production server.
3.move local tables schema (tables which you have mapping and new columns) into production server.
4.Now move the production data from backup table into source table based on mapping.
Related
I have a production and development database (on different systems of course). Many months ago, I copied the production database to the development system. I used exp/imp at the time. Since then there has been quite a few changes in the production database I would like to copy down to the development database. I'd rather not wipe out the development database and start over because of data I've had to add to the development database.
My original thought was to use MERGE INTO to copy the new records. But this apparently requires me to do this for tables, and list all fields of all tables. We're talking hundreds of tables and thousands of fields here. Not a pretty solution.
Is there an easier way?
Why not use the TABLE_EXISTS parameter of impdp to append the new data to the existing tables? Duplicate keys will error off but the rest of the data should still import. The results will be a bit messy. Prior to running TRUNCATE any tables in test where you can just bring the entire production table. Disable FK. Re-enable after import.
- -
Another option create a database link and generate INSERT/SELECT into all tables where data not in existing test table. You probably also want to disable FK prior to running and re-enable when done.
I have a structured database and software to handle it and I wanted to setup a demo version based off of a simple template version. I'm reading through some resources on temporary tables but I have questions.
What is the best way to go about cloning a "temporary" database while keeping a clean list of databases?
From what I've seen, there are two ways to do this - temporary local versions that are terminated at the end of the session, and tables that are stored in the database until deleted by the client or me.
I think I would prefer the 2nd option, because I would like to be able to see what they do with it. However, I do not want add a ton of throw-away databases and clutter my system.
How can I a) schedule these for deletion after say 30 days and b) if possible, keep these all under one umbrella, or in other words, is there a way to keep them out of my main list of databases and grouped by themselves.
I've thought about having one database and then serving up the information by using a unique ID for the user and 'faux indexes' so that it appears as 1,2,3 instead of 556,557,558 to solve B. I'm unsure how I could solve A, other than adding a date and protected columns and having a script that runs daily and deletes if over 30 days and not protected.
I apologize for the open-ended question, but the resources I've found are a bit ambiguous.
These aren't true temp tables in the sense that your DBMS knows them. What you're looking for is a way to have a demo copy of your database, probably with a cut-down data set. It's really no different from having any other non-production copy of your database.
Don't do this on your production database server.
Do not do this on your production database server.
Script the creation of your database schema. Depending on the DBMS you're using, this may be pretty easy. If you've got a good development/deployment/maintenance process for your system, this should already exist.
Create your database on the non-production server using the script(s) generated in the previous step. Use an easily-identifiable naming convention, like starting the database name with demo.
Load any data required into the tables.
Point the demo version of your app (that's running on your non-production servers) at this new database.
Create a script/process/job which looks at your database server and drops any databases that match your demo DB naming convention and were created more than 30 days ago.
Without details about your actual environment, people can't give concrete examples/sample code/instructions.
If you cannot run a second, independent database server for these demos, then you will have to make do with your production server. This is still a bad idea because of potential security exposures and performance impact on your production database (constrained resources).
Create a complete copy of your database (or at least the schema, with a reduced data set) for each demo.
Create a unique set of credentials for each of these demo databases. This account should have access to only its demo database.
Configure the demo instance(s) of your application to connect to the demo database
Here's why I'm pushing so hard for separate databases: If you keep copying your "demo" tables within the database, you will have to update your application code to point at those tables each time you do a new demo. Once you start doing this, you're taking a big risk with your demos - the code you keep changing isn't really the application you're running in production anymore. And if you miss one of those changes, you'll get unexpected results at best, and mangling of your production data at worst.
I am fairly new at this, but I am deploying a DB project to the SQL server. I modified a table in the project, but when I successfully deploy to the server the table did not change, The changes to the table was not there. Am I missing something, or is it that for tables I have to manually change it?
Update
So I was experimenting with things and it seems that I needed to do a schema compare, then manually update the schema. This though resulted in some data lost. Deploy is suppose to do the same thing with out the data lost? Or is my definition of deploy completely off.
I'm trying to head this one off at the pass. I've got two database servers (DEV and PRD) and I have my database on the DEV server. I am looking to deploy v1 of my application to PRD server.
The question is this: Say in two months, I am ready to ship v1.1 of my application, which introduces two new VIEWS, six new fields (three fields in two tables, each), and an updated version of my sproc that creates records in the tables with new fields. My DEV database has the new schema, but my PRD database has the real data, so I can't simply copy the .mdf file, since I want to keep my PRD data, but include my new schema.
I understand doing the initial creation of tables, views, sprocs via saved .sql files; but what I'm wondering is, is it possible to use SSMS to create the appripriate "alter table" scripts or do I need to manually do this?
I have handled this with a release update SQL script that applies the changes to the previous version.
You either need to code this yourself or use one of the many DBA tools to do database compares and generate a diff script.
There are tools that will do this for you SQL Compare is one of them and one I like the best
Otherwise you have to code these yourself and don't forget to also script the permissions if you recreate the proc (unless you use ALTER PROC in that case permissions are preserved)
Since your database changes should be in scripts that are under source control, you just load them with the version that you are moving to prod just like any other code associated with that version. One you you never under any circumstances do is make changes to the dev (or any other) datbase, using the User interface.
Try the patching engine found in DBSourceTools.
http://dbsourcetools.codeplex.com
DBSourceTools is a utility to help developers get their databases under source control.
Simply point it at a Source Database, and it will script all database objects, incuding data to disk.
Once you have a Target database (v1), you can then place your patch scripts int the patches directory, and DBSourceTools will run these patches in order after re-creating your database.
This is a very effective means of thoroughly testing your change scripts.
I am writing code to migrate data from our live Access database to a new Sql Server database which has a different schema with a reorganized structure. This Sql Server database will be used with a new version of our application in development.
I've been writing migrating code in C# that calls Sql Server and Access and transforms the data as required. I migrated for the first time a table which has entries related to new entries of another table that I have not updated recently, and that caused an error because the record in the corresponding table in SQL Server could not be found
So, my SqlServer productions table has data only up to 1/14/09, and I'm continuing to migrate more tables from Access. So I want to write an update method that can figure out what the new stuff is in Access that hasn't been reflected in Sql Server.
My current idea is to write a query on the SQL side which does SELECT Max(RunDate) FROM ProductionRuns, to give me the latest date in that field in the table. On the Access side, I would write a query that does SELECT * FROM ProductionRuns WHERE RunDate > ?, where the parameter is that max date found in SQL Server, and perform my translation step in code, and then insert the new data in Sql Server.
What I'm wondering is, do I have the syntax right for getting the latest date in that Sql Server table? And is there a better way to do this kind of migration of a live database?
Edit: What I've done is make a copy of the current live database. Which I can then migrate without worrying about changes, then use that to test during development, and then I can migrate the latest data whenever the new database and application go live.
I personally would divide the process into two steps.
I would create an exact copy of Access DB in SQLServer and copy all the data
Copy the data from this temporary SQLServer DB to your destination database
In that way you can write set of SQL code to accomplish second step task
Alternatively use SSIS
Generally when you convert data to a new database that will take it's place in porduction, you shut out all users of the database for a period of time, run the migration and turn on the new database. This ensures no changes to the data are made while doing the conversion. Of course I never would have done this using c# either. Data migration is a database task and should have been done in SSIS (or DTS if you have an older version of SQL Server).
If the databse you are converting to is just in development, I would create a backup of the Access database and load the data from there to test the data loading process and to get the data in so you can do the application development. Then when it is time to do the real load, you just close down the real database to users and use it to load from. If you are trying to keep both in synch wile you develop, well I wouldn't do that but if you must, make a nightly backup of the file and load first thing in the morning using your process.
You may want to look at investing in a tool like SQL Data Compare.
I believe it has support for access databases too, and you can download a trial.
I you are happy with you C# code, but it fails because of the constraints in your destination database you temporarily can disable them and then enable after you copy the whole lot.
I am assuming that your destination database is brand new DB with no data, and not used by anyone when the transfer happens
It sounds like you have two problems:
You're migrating data from one database to another.
You're changing your schema.
Doing either of these things is tricky if you are trying to migrate the data while people are using the data.
The simplest approach is to migrate the data based on a static copy of the data, and also to queue updates to that data from the moment you captured the static copy. I don't know how easy this is in Access, but in SQLServer or Oracle you can use the redo logs for this or a manual solution using triggers. The poor-man's way of doing this is to make triggers for all the relevant tables that log the primary key of the records that have changed. Then after the old database is shut off you can iterate over those keys and get those records from the old database and put them into the new database. Just copy the whole record; if the record was deleted then delete it from the new database.
Your problem is compounded by the fact that you can't simply copy the data, you have to transform it. This means you probably have to shut down both databases and re-migrate the records based on the change list. It will take a lot of planning to ensure you get things right and I'd recommend writing a testing script that can validate that the resulting data is correct.
Also I'd ensure that the code for the migration runs inside one of the databases if possible. Otherwise you are copying the data twice and this will significantly harm the performance.