Just a bit of background on where my question is coming from: my company has multiple databases across the globe that uses the same schema and once of my department's responsibility is to monitor and make sure all these DBs are in sync from a schema SQL change perspective.
Now, my question is if anyone knows of any Software/tool that has a a Frontend UI which is able to do the following (the lower number the more important to have):
Able to track what SQL code change was applied on which database and when. Basically, if we write a SQL query that changed the structure of a table and we need it applied to 80% or 100% percent of the DBs, either via manual input or some automatic check the tool will tell me that yes, this was indeed applied.
Code distribution tool: we give it the query or a file that contains the code and it's able to push to the Databases it needs to (and create the audit log for that)
Code/object repository: keeps track of what was custom developed and pushed to the databases
I know SSIS might be able to do some of these things, but we need a tool that also has a simple frontend interface that can be accessed by non-IT personnel. (*clarification: we are not planning on giving non-DBA people access to change things, just to the audit aspect of said tool)
I've tried searching the internet, but i have a feeling i'm not using the right vocabulary to get the results i'm looking for.
Hence i wanted to see if the community was aware of any such tool or something similar?
Try searching for one of these two types of systems:
Release/Build/Deployment Automation Complex programs like Serena that have modules for pushing, tracking, and auditing any kind of software, anywhere. These will include all the GUI bells and whistles. But you'll have to deal with extra databases, configuration, agents, workflows, consultants(?), etc. These programs are geared more towards developers.
Remote Execution/Configuration Management Simpler programs like Salt, Fabric, and Ansible that let you run operating system commands anywhere. They don't offer as many features, and you have to do more of the work yourself, but in some ways that's liberating. If you know exactly what commands you want to run you don't need some other program holding your hand. These programs are geared more towards administrators.
From a database administrator's point of view, the main problem with those types of programs is that none of them are relational. Yes they can connect to a database and run a script, but none of them really speak SQL. Their native languages are Java, XML, SSH, etc. There's nothing wrong with those technologies, but if you only care about databases you don't want to deal with all that complexity.
If you're not happy with either of those types of programs I recommend you look at my open source program Method5. It is a remote execution program built as an extension to Oracle SQL. It works entirely inside an Oracle database, so you can install it yourself and won't need any additional websites, agents, configuration files, GUIs, etc.
Based on your comment about getting bogged down by links, and my answer to your question about half a year ago, I think this is the kind of program you were gradually heading towards creating. It took my team a couple thousand hours of developing and testing to get it right so you were probably wise to give up on making your own.
To specifically answer your requirements:
Tracking Changes are stored in an audit trail. But more importantly it has the ability and a pre-built script to compare an unlimited number of schemas, all in one view. At the end of the day what you really want to know is "are my schemas the same", not necessarily "did the same thing get run everywhere?".
Code Distribution If you just have SQL or PL/SQL, deploying it through Method5 is as easy as it can possibly get. Just specify what you want to run, and where you want to run it, like this: select * from table(m5('create index ...', 'dev, qa, prodDB1, prodDB2')); The program does not (yet) run SQL*Plus scripts. But when you have the ability to run SQL and PL/SQL so easily there's little need for SQL*Plus.
Code Repository All executions are stored in a simple table, M5_AUDIT. It contains the code, who ran it, where they ran it, and how they ran it. It wasn't designed to be a repository like SVN but it's good enough for simple auditing and tracking code.
Method5 does not contain a GUI but in some ways I consider that to be a feature. Since everything is done relationally, everything is in a simple table. You can use any of your existing GUIs - Toad, PL/SQL Developer, Excel, Apex, etc. It's a robust back-end solution that will hopefully make a good foundation for easily building a simple front end.
Related
I have been developing a network security application for several years now, as the lead developer at my company. It is a split-architecture design, where one component resides on the customer's network, and the other component in our own cloud. We have developed our own custom versioning system that keeps both sides synchronized at each patch (per customer), but until now it has only allowed incremental changes to be made, and rollbacks are not possible.
We'd like to move to a forkable git-like solution for our code, so that we can develop and test multiple features simultaneously, but the thing that's holding us back from that is our database. We use PostgreSQL (currently 9.3.12), and I've written a custom script to calculate the deltas between the "old" and "new" database structure, each time we "make a patch". It spits out a list of SQL commands necessary to update the "old" database structure to look like the "new", including tables, functions, sequences, triggers, you name it. It's very elegant and pretty much never fails anymore, even with complicated deltas.
However, I realize that in order to have a git-like solution for this (check-out, check-in, merge changes into test and production code, etc.) while also keeping database changes in sync with application code, we'll need to have something a lot more advanced than just "old" vs "new". Note that we don't need to modify database data for the most part, only table structure, which is altered in place on existing customer databases.
So my question is this: Any ideas for a git-like SQL version control system, which allows forking and merging, and can be easily kept in sync with application code changes? Our custom tool is already a bit more advanced than some open-source tools we've looked into (such as sqlt-diff), and tools like Red Gate are a bit out of our price range as a startup (not to mention that I haven't heard anybody mention forking in context with Red Gate). We're open to writing a custom tool, if that's what we need to do, but we're scratching our heads about where to start with something like that. We know how to calculate deltas, but we don't know how to manage all those things across different forks.
Free or open-source tools, frameworks we can adapt, or general guiding principles for building such tools are all appreciated!
One way of solving this problem is with migrations. A couple of lightweight tools, but there are many others:
http://sequel.jeremyevans.net/rdoc/files/doc/migration_rdoc.html
https://flywaydb.org/
Rather than calculating deltas between versions after the fact, migrations can be used to evolve the schema in a controlled way. You can create feature-specific migrations that can be tracked (and forked/merged) along with the rest of your code.
Depending on how fancy you want to get, you may need to extend the default naming/numbering schemes.
The problem
Ok, sorry that my question is somewhat abstract and subjective, but will try to make it as specific as possible. So, the situation I am in is simple - I am remaking a very old MS Access application on a new website using ASP.NET MVC. As currently the MVC site is using SQL Server 2008 (for many well known reasons) I need to find a way to migrate the tables AND the data, because the information in the old database will be used in the new application.
Alright, so far so good, however there are a few problems. The old application is written in a different language, meaning that I want to translate table names, field names, and all other names that are there to English. Furthermore, I will be making some changes on the models themselves (change the type of some fields, add additional fields to some tables, remove old unnecessary ones and more). So technically I'll be 'having my way' with everything.
Researched solutions
With those things in mind I researched for the ways to migrate data from Access database to a SQL Server. Of course, there is a lot of information on the matter, in Stack Overflow alone there are more than a few questions and solutions. So why am I struggling to find the answer ? Well I found a few solutions that will be sufficient to some extend (actually will definitely solve my problems) but I am writing to ask if someone experienced has a better perspective on it than I do. Alright, the solutions and why I am still looking for advice: /I'll be listing just a couple of the most common and popular ones that I found, many of the others share the same capabilities and/or results /
Upsize Wizzard (Access) - this is a tool devised specifically for migrating tables and data from Access. It is my most favourite one for the moment as I find it kind of straightforward to work with and it provides good overall results. I was able to migrate the tables to SQL Server (along with the data of course) which more or less is what I am intending to do. It is fast, it seems like it allows you to migrate indexes, primary keys and even to my knowledge foreign keys (table relationships). The downsides of this tool, however, include that it ignores your queries (which I don't really need honestly) and it doesn't provide a way to change the model, names or types of the properties of the table you migrate - which is the thing I kind of prefer, because I will have to make more than a few changes, adding, renaming, deleting, etc. And then continue with the development process (of the application) which will lead to a few additional minor changes. And finally I would need to apply all changes (migration + all changes) on the production server, which overall is prone to mistakes as I will be doing it by hand (and there are more than a few tables).
SQL Server Migration Assistant (SSMA) - ok, this is a separate tool (not included in Access) with again the same idea - to migrate data from Access to ... possibly everywhere, haven't researched that. Overall it offers more functionality and customizing from the Upsize Wizard, but of course it does it in a more complicated way. I haven't put enough effort to make a migration with this tool yet, as it involves a lot of installations and additional work, but according to my research it provides almost all (if not all) of the functionality I require. The downside however comes with the naming. As I mentioned it allows you to apply changes on the tables, schema, fields, indexes, keys and probably everything, but the articles advice that I change the names in Access first, as it will be easier and the migration process will run more smoothly. I am not allowed to make changes on the original Access database, as it will remain functional until the publish of the 'renewed' project, and the data inside it is being used, so a mere copy of the file is a solution I am not particularly fond of, because I might loose new records. Also I cant predict the changes I would want to make in the development process (as I said I believe I would want/need to apply some additional changes later on when I find 'weaknesses' in my data design in the development process) so I find it to be a little half baked solution.
Conclusion
The options presented, the way I see them, are two:
Use the Upsize Wizard to migrate the access tables, then write a script that applies the changes I want to make. Then in the development process add any additional changes to the script. When ready to publish on the production server, reapply the migration with the wizard, run the changes script and pray everything is fine.
Get more involved with the SSMA tool and try producing an updated version of the tables with the migration process. (See how efficient the renaming is and decide whether to use copied file to rename and then find a way to migrate only new records or do it all in the SSMA). Then again write a script for the changes that occur in the development process and re-do and apply it all on the production server when ready and then pray everything is fine.
Option I have not yet seen, apply it and then pray everything is fine.
I have researched the matter for a couple of days now, and found a few more solutions that I do not believe are better by the mentioned. However I include the possibility of missing the 'big red X on the map', a practical and easy solution which seems like it was designed specifically for me (though I doubt that a little). Anyway, reducing all the madness that I have written so far to a few simple questions will look like:
Is anyone aware if my conclusions are correct? I am leaning towards option one as it is easier to accomplish.
Has anyone experienced/found a better way to do that, or just found some 'logic-leaps' in my writings as I am overthinking the entire thing a little and may be doing some obvious miscalculation.
Very sorry for asking a trivial question and one that includes decision making that may involve deeper understanding of my project and situation, yet I am working with rather sensitive data and would appreciate feedback, even if only to improve my confidence into the chosen approach.
There is one other tool/method you might want to consider that seems to cater to your specific needs more. This would be to use the data import/export tool that ships with sqlserver to do a complete copy of all data into a temporary location within sql server and then write custom queries to reorganize the names and other changes you want to make. Is a bit more work but you could use the end product as a seed method for your migrations ;) (if you are doing code first anyway)
In HTML+CSS+JS world, http://jsfiddle.net/ is very helpful tool for asking / making example about web development. And I also saw several browser(javascript)-based programming language compilers and REPLs. But I can't find online / web-based test environment for database operations( especially for RDBMS ).
Is there any open/free database service with web-based interfaces for testing queries?
Added: This tool will be good for this situation; If I'm troubling with complex queries, then create a sample table via web interface and ask it on stackoverflow with the 'sample table URL'. Anyone can access to the URL and test their queries on web site. (Yes, queries are running on 'real' database system) And also the query results can be tracked, then we can even make 'ranking' for it :)
Try SQL Fiddle.
You can try your SQL query and execute/test it.
There are free "disposable" database servers like db4free and even MonoQL.
As far as the web-based interfaces and short URLs go, I don't think you'll have much luck.
To manage your data you have to stick to what is provided (usually phpMyAdmin or similar) and there is no short-URL to query mapping. One other caveat of such system is that (without the appropriate user permissions) one user could easily destroy all your test data -- and remember that (relational) database versioning is much more expensive than plain text versioning, so that's pretty much out of the question.
For non-RDBMS, I can think of try.mongodb.org -- but it suffers from the same problems.
Almost forgot, the Stack Exchange Data Explorer, lets you practice T-SQL queries (with permalinks).
PS: As a personal side-note, I think it's a cool idea and I would love to see something like that implemented, perhaps even mashed-up with SchemaBank or similar - that would be just awesome.
You can't really test a query without the right underlying dbms, schemas (or databases), tables, constraints, stored procedures, and permissions, which tend to be highly application specific. (That is, not readily reusable among multiple users.)
Instead, the database world has grown up into database management systems that you can freely download and install locally. Then you can build and populate your own tables, and test your queries however you like.
Most of these come with both a command line interface and some kind of graphical interface. It's not clear to me what a web-based interface would give you that doesn't already exist in one form or another.
I think that, to do what you want, would require commercial licenses for Oracle, DB2, SQL Server, and Sybase. That's a pretty high barrier to entry for a free web site.
Trouble with a web based query analyser is that you'd need to let it 'tunnel' on to your box to run the queries and for many making a development/test box open to the internet is not a possibility.
For a non web based tool you could look at LinqPad http://www.linqpad.net/ - it does Linq & Sql and other stuff too - very handy tool indeed
We have been looking into possible solutions for our SQL Source control. I just came across Red Gates SQL Source control and wondered if anyone has implemented it? I am going to download the trial and give it a shot, but just wanted to see if others have real experience.
As always greatly appreciate the input
--S
I have updated my original post below to reflect changes in the latest versions of SQL Source Control (3.0) and SQL Compare (10.1).
Since this question was asked over a year ago, my response may not be that helpful to you, but for others who may currently be evaluating SSC, I thought I would throw in my two cents. We just started using SQL Source Control (SSC) and overall I am fairly satisfied with it so far. It does have some quirks though, especially if you are working in a shared database environment (as opposed to every developer working locally) and particularly working in a legacy environment where objects in the same database are divided haphazardly between development teams.
To give a brief overview of how we are using the product in our organization, we are working in a shared environment where we all make changes to the same development database, so we attached the shared database to the source control repository. Each developer is responsible for making changes to the objects in the database through SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS), and when they are finished, they can commit their changes to source control. When we are ready to deploy to staging, the build master (me) merges the development branch of the database code to the main (staging) branch and then runs SQL Compare using the main branch repository version of the database as the source and the live staging database as the target, and SQL Compare generates the necessary scripts to deploy the changes made to the staging environment. Staging to production deployments works in similar fashion. One other important point to note is that, given the fact that we are sharing the same database with other development teams, we use a built in feature of SSC that allows you to create filters on database objects by name, type, etc. We manually set up filters on our specific team's objects, excluding all other objects, so that we don't accidentally commit other development team's changes when we do our deployments.
So in general it's a fairly simple product to set up and use and it's really nice because you're always working with live objects in SSMS, as opposed to disconnected script files stored in a separate source repository that run the risk of getting out of sync. It's also nice because SQL Compare generates the deployment scripts for you so you don't have to worry about introducing errors as you would if you were creating the scripts on your own. And as SQL Compare is a very mature and stable product, you can feel pretty confident that it's going to create the proper scripts for you.
With that being said, however, here are some of the quirks that I have run into so far:
SSC is pretty chatty out of the box in terms of communicating with the db server in order to keep track of database items that are out of sync with the source control repository. It polls every few milliseconds and if you add in multiple developers all working against the same database using SSC, you can imagine that our dba's weren't very happy. Fortunately, you can easily reduce your polling frequency to something more acceptable, although at the cost of sacrificing responsive visual notifications of when objects have been changed.
Using the object filtering feature, you can't easily tell from looking at objects in SSMS which objects are included in your filter. So you don’t know for sure if an object is under source control, unlike in Visual Studio, where icons are used to indicate source controlled objects.
The object filtering GUI is very clunky. Due to the fact that we are working in a legacy database environment, there is currently not a clear separation between the objects that our team owns and those owned by other teams, so in order to prevent us from accidentally committing/deploying other teams’ changes, we have set up a filtering scheme to explicitly include each specific object that we own. As you can imagine, this becomes quite cumbersome, and as the GUI to edit the filters is set up to enter one object at a time, it could become quite painful, especially trying to set up your environment for the first time (I ended up writing an application to do this). Going forward, we are creating a new schema for our application to better facilitate object filtering (besides being a better practice anyway).
Using the shared database model, developers are allowed to commit any pending changes to a source controlled database, even if the changes are not theirs. SSC does give you a warning if you try to check in a bunch of changes that these changes might not be yours, but other than that you’re on your own. I actually find this to be one of SSC’s most dangerous “quirks”.
SQL Compare can’t currently share the object filters created by SSC, so you would have to manually create a matching filter in SQL Compare, so there is a danger that these could get out of sync. I just ended up cut-and-pasting the filters from the underlying SSC filter file into the SQL Compare project filter to avoid dealing with the clunky object filtering GUI. I believe that the next version of SQL Compare will allow it to share filters with SSC, so at least this problem is only a short term one. (NOTE: This issue has been resolved in the latest version of SQL Compare. SQL Compare can now use the object filters created by SSC.)
SQL Compare also can’t compare against a SSC database repository when launched directly. It has to be launched from within SSMS. I believe that the next version of SQL Compare will provide this functionality, so again it’s another short term problem. (NOTE: This issue has been resolved in the latest version of SQL Compare.)
Sometimes SQL Compare isn’t able to create the proper scripts to get the target database from one state to another, usually in the case where you are updating the schema of existing tables that aren’t empty, so you currently have to write manual scripts and manage the process yourself. Fortunately, this will be addressed through “migration scripts” in the next release of SSC, and from looking at the early release version of the product, it appears that the implementation of this new feature was well thought out and designed. (NOTE: Migration scripts functionality has been officially released. However, it does not currently support branching. If you want to use migration scripts, you will need to run sql compare against your original development code branch... the one where you checked in your changes... which is pretty clunky and has forced me to modify my build process in a less than ideal way in order to work around this limitation. Hopefully this will be addressed in a future release.)
Overall, I am pretty happy with the product and with Redgate’s responsiveness to user feedback and the direction that the product is taking. The product is very easy to use and well designed, and I feel that in the next release or two the product will probably give us most, if not all, of what we need.
I use SQL Compare for generating scripts when going from dev -> test -> production and it saves me tons of time.
For source control though, we use SVN and ScriptDB (http://scriptdb.codeplex.com/) though. I mainly use source control of SQL scripts for keeping track of changes. I think that rolling back a version of the database seldomly (if ever) works since data may have changed when making structure changes.
This works fine for a few of our current projects (largest is 200 tables and 2000 sprocs). The main reason for doing this though is cost since not all team members have to buy SQL Compare (I avoid adding dependencies to commercial projects unless really needed).
We performed an extensive evaluation of Red Gate's product and found a few major flaws. If you want to look at who changed an object, you can't do it without SysAdmin privileges. The product needs to look at the trace on your server, which requires those rights. I'm on a 5+ person team, and not knowing who had pending changes is what will stop us from using the product.
I just started working for a new company and they use Redgate SQL Source Control for all their projects, amonst them a large and complex one. It does the job well in tandem with TFS. The only drawback from my point of view is that the SQL Server Management Studio integration is highly unstable. Frequent crashes of SQL Server Management Studio happen when the tools are installed.
I had a (friendly but heated) argument with my lead developer the other day because our project has TSQL Scripts that I code directly into SQL files which I then run against the database. I find that when I do this, it's easy to work out the schema in advance without fiddly pointing and clicking and then there's no opportunity to forget to generate a script to put into source control as generating the script no longer becomes a chore you have to do after the fact, but is an implicit part of the process (and also leads to cleaner scripts without the extra crap that SQL Server Management Studio inserts into the scripts it generates).
My lead developer insists that having to manually script it out is a pain in the arse and that he absolutely refuses to write his scripts by hand when there are perfectly good tools to do it without coding. I've noticed that the copying of his changes into the actual scripts tends to get delayed a bit as a result though.
What are your thoughts on the pros and/or cons of doing it one way vs the other? Am I being too rigid/old-school in my sticking to hand coding schema scripts or is he being too reliant on third party tools and losing something in the process?
I always script stuff myself because the wizards sometimes don't script things in a way that I like it and will also give funky names to defaults
scripting things yourself is also good in case you get laid off and you have to go for an interview where they ask you to script DDL on the whiteboard
As I usually collaborate with a colleague during the schema design, I tend to design the schema using the GUI tools, as its easier to discuss it with a diagram of the tables in front of you. I then generate the scripts, being careful to select the exact options that I want to avoid having to make manual changes post-export.
I think a decision on the relative merits of the two approaches might take into account factors such as
the frequency of changes to the schema
the frequency with which changes need to be propagated to other schemas (test, user acceptance, production, clients * n, etc)
the degree to which the schema may vary across development branches
how well-known in advance your various changes can be scheduled
whether or not you can generate SQL "diff" scripts between schemas.
On balance, I tend to prefer to work with a script for each change (or "migration"). It lets me resequence change releases as priorities shift.
Just because you can create tables in a graphical tool doesn't necessarily mean you should.
I find its as quick to write a script as it is to use SQLMS. You still have to type names in SQLMS, and the time spent moving from keyboard and mouse could be used writing the proper script anyway.
The two of you are almost working with two sets of code. Consistency seems to be a key factor on these types of decisions. In your case, if you create a script, your boss uses the gui to add a field, how do you stay in sync? You can't use your script to rebuild the table without editing it (Chance for error.).
Maybe he should pull rank and force you to format your scripts the same way the GUI creates them - just kidding.
I think you should flip on it..........