We have an AS400 mainframe running our DB2 transactional database. We also have a SQL Server setup that gets loaded nightly with data from the AS400. The SQL Server setup is for reporting.
I can link the two database servers, BUT, there's concern about how big a performance hit DB2 might suffer from queries coming from SQL Server.
Basically, the fear is that if we start hitting DB2 with queries from SQL Server we'll bog down the transactional system and screw up orders and shipping.
Thanks in advance for any knowledge that can be shared.
Anyone who has a pat answer for a performance question is wrong :-) The appropriate answer is always 'it depends.' Performance tuning is best done via measure, change one variable, repeat.
DB2 for i shouldn't even notice if someone executes a 1,000 row SELECT statement. Take Benny's suggestion and run one while the IBM i side watch. If they want a hint, use WRKACTJOB and sort on the Int column. That represents the interactive response time. I'd guess that the query will be complete before they have time to notice that it was active.
If that seems unacceptable to the management, then perhaps offer to test it before or after hours, where it can't possibly impact interactive performance.
As an aside, the RPG guys can create Excel spreadsheets on the fly too. Scott Klement published some RPG wrappers over the Java POI/HSSF classes. Also, Giovanni Perrotti at Easy400.net has some examples of providing an Excel spreadsheet from a web page.
I'd mostly agree with Buck, a 1000 row result set is no big deal...
Unless of course the system is looking through billions of rows across hundreds of tables to get the 1000 rows you are interested in.
Assuming a useful index exists, 1000 rows shouldn't be a big deal. If you have IBM i Access for Windows installed, there's a component of System i Navigator called "Run SQL Scripts" that includes "Visual Explain" that provides a visual explanation of the query execution plan. View that you can ensure that an index is being used.
On key thing, make sure the work is being done on the i. When using a standard linked table MS SQL Server will attempt to pull back all the rows then do it's own "where".
select * from MYLINK.MYIBMI.MYLIB.MYTABE where MYKEYFLD = '00335';
Whereas this format sends the statement to the remote server for processing and just gets back the results:
select * from openquery(MYLINK, 'select * from mylib.mytable where MYKEYFLD = ''00335''');
Alternately, you could ask the i guys to build you a stored procedure that you can call to get back the results you are looking for. Personally, that's my preferred method.
Charles
Is it possible to build a generic query that verifies and if needed corrects a whole table schema?
Example:
On my dev machine i have a sql server with some tables. I, and others, make changes to the tables and sometimes misses to notify the others about them. :/
I want to build a query that reads the dev sql tables and creates a query that i can run one another sql server and updates that table there so that they are equal.
I cant drop the table and recreate it unfortunately. I dont want to change any of the data.
If this is to hard with sql syntax is there some tools that can do this for me? The sql tables are almost always on different machines and most likely i cant connect directly to them from the same place. So tha fixing/verifying needs to be done "offline".
Time is not of the essence, it can be a very slow query as long as it works.
update: I want to verify the sql schema and not the content of the table
update2: We are using SQL Server 2008 R2
It is possible, but not easy. This kind of tool is called a Data Dictionary, and you can write one yourself (see advice from the Database Programmer) or you can buy a commercial one, for example RedGate's SQL Compare.
I'm creating the front-end for a project and I made a copy of the back-end database from the company's server and put it on my computer. I needed to make some changes (a few new tables and two new columns in an existing table) for security roles and other things so I duplicated the copied database and made my changes on the new one.
I want to deploy my project to the company's server now but we need to modify the original back-end database. I need to generate a SQL script that finds the changes between the old-database and my newer database, which can be run on the old database to create the new tables and columns. The script should retain the data from the old database and NOT add any junk/testing data I made in my new database.
By the way, I'm using SQL Server 2008 R2 and the old database on the server is on 2005. I've been looking around for utilities to use and found tablediff. However, it looks like it will copy the data and I can't see an argument on the information page to toggle this.
I'm sure it's simple but I'm not really sure how to do this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
By far the solution I trust most to handle schema comparisons is Red Gate's SQL Compare:
http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-compare/
It has a companion called Data Compare which is designed specifically for data. You can grab the free trial to see if it does what you need in this case.
There are other options as well, for example SQL Server Data Tools has this functionality, though I haven't tested it to any degree that I could compare feature sets, performance, etc.
I've also blogged about why you want to use a tool and just pay for this functionality, rather than solve it programmatically yourself. The post also mentions a variety of alternatives if budget is a primary blocker:
http://bertrandaaron.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/re-blog-the-cost-of-reinventing-the-wheel/
I'm considering undertaking a project to migrate a very large MS Access application to a new system based on SQL Server. The existing system is essentially an ERP application with a couple of dozen users, all sharing the Access database over the network. The database has around 300 tables and lots of messy VBA code. This system is beginning to break down (actually, it's amazing it has worked as long as it has).
Due to the size and complexity of the Access application, a 'big bang' approach is not really feasible. It seems sensible to rope off chunks of functionality and migrate them piecemeal to the new system. During the migration process, which I expect to take several months, there may be a need for both databases to be in operation and be able to query and modify data in both systems.
I have considered using something like the ADO.NET Entity Framework to implement a data abstraction layer to handle this, but as far as I can tell, the Entity Framework has no Access provider.
Does my approach seem reasonable? What other strategies have people used to accomplish similar goals?
You may find that the main problem is using the MS Access JET engine as the backend. I'm assuming that you do have an Access FE (frontend) with all objects except tables, and a BE (backend - tables only).
You may find that migrating the data to SQL Server, and linking the Access FE to that, would help alleviate problems immediately.
Then, if you don't want to continue to use MS Access as the FE, you could consider breaking it up into 'modules', and redesign modules one by one using a separate development platform.
We faced a similar situation a few years ago, but we knew from the beginning that we'll have to swich one day to SQL SERVER, so the whole code was written to work from an Access client to both Access AND SQL server databases.
The idea of having a 'one-step' migration to SQL server is certainly the easier way to manage this on the database side, and there are many tools for that. But, depending on the way your client app talks to the database, your code might then not work properly. If, for example, your code includes a lot of SQL instructions (or generates them on the fly by, for example, adding filters to SELECT instructions), your syntax might not be 'SQL server' compatible: access wildcards, dates, functions, will not work on SQL server.
In addition to this, and as said by #mjv, the other drawback of a one time switch to MS SQL is that you will inheritate many of the problems from the original database: wrong or inapropriate field names, inapropriate primary/foreign key policies, hidden one-to-many relations that you'd like to implement in the new database model, etc.
I'll propose here some principles and rules to implement a 'soft transition' solution, which clearly best fits you. Just to say that it's not going to be easy, but it's definitely very interesting, paticularly when dealing with 300 tables! Lucky you!
I assume here that yo have the ability to update the client code, and you'd prefer to keep at all times the same client interface. It is of course possible to have at transition time two different interfaces, one for each database, but this will be very confusing for the users, and a permanent source of frustration for them.
According to me, the best solution strongly depend on:
The original connection technology,
and the way data is managed in your
client's code: Access linked tables,
ODBC, ADODB, recordset, local
tables, forms recordsources, batch
updating, etc.
The possibilities to split your
tables and your app in 'mostly
independant' modules.
And you will not spare the following mandatory activities:
setup up of a transfer
procedure from Access database to SQL server. You
can use already existing tools (The
access upsizing wizard is very poor,
so do not hesitate to buy a real
one, like SSW or EMS SQL Manager,
very powerfull) or build your own
one with Visual Basic. If your plan
is to make some changes in Data
Definition, you'll definitely have
to write some code. Keep in mind
that you will run this code
maaaaaany times, so make sure that
it includes all time-saving
instructions that will allow you to
restart the process from the start
as many times as you want. You will
have to choose between 2 basic data
import strategies when importing data:
a - DELETE existing record, then INSERT imported record
b - UPDATE existing record from imported record
If you plan to switch to new Primary\foreign key types, you'll have to keep track of old identifiers in your new database model during the transition period. Do not hesitate to switch to GUID Primary Keys at this stage, especially if the plan is to replicate data on multiple sites one of these days.
This transfer procedure will be divided in modules corresponding to the 'logical' modules defined previously, and you should be able to run any of these modules independantly (keeping of course in mind that they'll probably have to be implemented in a specific order, where the 'customers' module has to run before the 'invoicing' module).
implement in your client's code the possibility to connect to both original ms-access database and new MS SQL server. Ideally, you should be able to manage from within your code both connections for displaying and validating data.
This possibility will be implemented by modules, where you will have, for each of them, a 'trial period', ie the possibility to choose at testing time between access connection and sql connection when using the module. Once testing is done and complete, the module can then be run in exclusive SQL server mode.
During the transfer period, that can last a few months, you will have to manage programatically the database constraints that exist between 'SQL server' modules and 'Access' modules. Going back to our customers/invoicing example, the customers module will be first switched to MS SQL. Before the Invoicing module can be switched, you'll have to implement programmatically the one to many relations between Customers and Invoices, where each of the tables will be in a different database. Such a constraint can be implemented on the Invoice form by populating the Customers combobox with the Customers recordset from the SQL server.
My proposal is to build your modules following your database model, allways beginning with the 'one' tables or your 'one-to-many' relations: basic lists like 'Units', 'Currencies', 'Countries', shall be switched first. You'll have a first 'hands on' experience in writting data transfer code, and managing a second connection in your client interface. You'll be then able to 'go up' in your database model, switching the 'products' and 'customers' tables (where units, countries and currencies are foreign keys) to the new server.
Good luck!
I would second the suggestion to upsize the back end to SQL Server as step 1.
I would never go to the suggested Step 2, though (i.e., replacing the Access front end with something else). I would instead suggest investing the effort in fixing the flaws of the schema, and adjusting the Access app to work with the new schema.
Obviously, it is never the case that everything just works hunky dory when you upsize -- some things that were previously quite fast will be dogs, and some things that were previously quite slow will be fast. And I've found that it is often the case that the problems are very often not where you anticipate that they will be. You can only figure out what needs to be fixed by testing.
Basically, anything that works poorly gets re-architected, or moved entirely server-side.
Leverage the investment in the existing Access app rather than tossing all that out and starting from scratch. Access is a fine front end for a SQL Server back end as long as you don't assume it's going to work just the same way as it would with a Jet/ACE back end.
...thinking out loud... I think this may work.
I appears that the complexity of the application resides in the various VBA modules rather than the database table/schema themselves. A possible migration path could therefore be to first migrate the data storage to SQL server, exactly as-is, as follow:
prevent any change to the data for a few hours
duplicate all tables to the SQL server; be sure to create the same indexes as well.
create linked tables to ODBC Source pointing to the newly created tables on SQL Server
these tables should have the very same name as the original tables (which therefore may require being renamed, say with a leading underscore, for possible reference).
Now, the application can be restarted and should be using the SQL tables rather than the Access tables. All logic should work as previously (right...), possible slowness to be expected, depending on the distance between the two machines.
All the above could be tested in about a day's work or so; the most tedious being the creation of the tables on SQL server (much of that can be automated, I'm sure). The next most tedious task is to assert that the application effectively works as previously, but with its storage on SQL.
EDIT: As suggested by a comment, I should stress that there is a [fair ?] possibility that the application would not readily work so smoothly under SQL server back-end, and could require weeks of hard work in testing and fixing. However, and unless some of these difficulties can be anticipated because of insight into the application not expressed in the question, I propose that attempting the "As-is" migration to SQL Server should be considered; after all, it may just work with minimal effort, and if it doesn't, we'd know this very quickly. This is therefore a hi-return, low risk proposal...
The main advantage sought with this approach is that there will be a single storage during the [as the OP expects] longer period during which the old Access application will co-exist with the new application.
The drawback of this approach, is that, at least at first, the schema of original database is reproduced verbatim, i.e. including some of its known quirks and legacy-herited idiosyncrasies. These schema issues (and the underlying application logic) can be in time corrected, but this is of course less easy than if the new application starts ab initio, with its own, separate, storage, and distinct schema.
After the storage is moved to SQL server, the most used and/or the most independent modules of the Access application can be re-written in the new application, and as significant portions of the original application is ported, effective usage, by select beta testers or by actual users can start to be switched to the new application.
Possibly, some kind of screen-scraping based logic or some other system could be used to produce an hybrid application which would provide the end users with a comprehensive application, which sometimes work from new logic, and sometimes from the original MS-Access program.
We've got a product which utilizes multiple SQL Server 2005 databases with triggers. We're looking for a sustainable solution for deploying and upgrading the database schemas on customer servers.
Currently, we're using Red Gate's SQL Packager, which appears to be the wrong tool for this particular job. Not only does SQL Packager appear to be geared toward individual databases, but the particular (old) version we own has some issues with SQL Server 2005. (Our version of SQL Packager worked fine with SQL Server 2000, even though we had to do a lot of workarounds to make it handle multiple databases with triggers.)
Can someone suggest a product which can create an EXE or a .NET project to do the following things?
* Create a main database with some default data.
* Create an audit trail database.
* Put triggers on the main database so audit data will automatically be inserted into the audit trail database.
* Create a secondary database that has nothing to do with the main database and audit trail database.
And then, when a customer needs to update their database schema, the product can look at the changes between the original set of databases and the updated set of databases on our server. Then the product can create an EXE or .NET project which can, on the customer's server...
* Temporarily drop triggers on the main database so alterations can be made.
* Alter database schemas, triggers, stored procedures, etc. on any of the original databases, while leaving the customer's data alone.
* Put the triggers back on the main database.
Basically, we're looking for a product similar to SQL Packager, but one which will handle multiple databases easily. If no such product exists, we'll have to make our own.
Thanks in advance for your suggestions!
I was looking for this product myself, knowing that RedGate solution worked fine for "one" DB; unfortunately I have been unable to find such tool :(
In the end, I had to roll my own solution to do something "similar". It was a pain in the… but it worked.
My scenario was way simpler than yours, as we didn't have triggers and T-SQL.
Later, I decided to take a different approach:
Every DB change had a SCRIPT. Numbered. 001_Create_Table_xXX.SQL, 002_AlterTable_whatever.SQL, etc.
No matter how small the change is, there's got to be a script. The new version of the updater does this:
Makes a BKP of the customerDB (just in case)
Starts executing scripts in Alphabetical order. (001, 002...)
If a script fails, it drops the BD. Logs the Script error, Script Number, etc. and restores the customer's DB.
If it finishes, it makes another backup of the customer's DB (after the "migration") and updates a table where we store the DB version; this table is checked by the app to make sure that the DB and the app are in sync.
Shows a nice success msg.
This turned out to be a little bit more "manual" but it has been really working with little effort for three years now.
The secret lies in keeping a few testing DBs to test the "upgrade" before deploying. But apart from a few isolated Dbs where some scripts failed because of data inconsistency, this worked fine.
Since your scenario is a bit more complex, I don't know if this kind of approach can be ok with you.
As of this writing (June 2009) there's still no product on the market that'll do all this for multiple databases. I work for Quest Software, makers of Change Director for SQL Server, another database change automation system. Ours doesn't handle multiple databases like you're after, and I've seen the others out there. No dice.
I wouldn't hold out hope for it either, given the directions I've seen in SQL Server management. Things are going more toward packaged applications being contained in a single database, and most of the code is focusing on that.