I requested that a client send me a copy of their current MS SQL database. Instead of being given a database backup, or small set of scripts I could use to recreate the database, I was provided with hundreds upon hundreds of individual SQL scripts, and no instructions on the order in which they'd need to be run.
The scripts cannot simply be executed in one batch operation, as there are foreign key dependencies between tables. It appears as though they've limited these scripts to creating a single table or stored procedure per script.
Normally, I'd simply ask a client to provide the information in a more usable format, but they're not known for getting back to us in a timely manner, and our project timeline is already in jeopardy due to delays on their end.
Are there any tools I can use to recreate the database from this enormous set of scripts?
This may sound a bit arcane, but you can do the following, iteratively:
Put all the scripts into a list of "scripts to be run"
Run all the scripts in the "to be run" scripts
Remove the successful runs
Repeate 2-3 until no scripts are left
The scripts with no dependencies will finish in the first round. The ones that depend on them in the next round, and then so on and so on.
I would suggest that you operate all this from a metascript, that uses a database table to store the names of the available scripts.
Good luck.
If you set your folder of scripts as a data source in Red Gate SQL Compare, and specify a blank database as the target, it should allow you to compare and deploy to the target database. This is because the tool is able to read all SQL creation scripts recursively from the folder you specify. This is available as a fully functional 14-day trial, so you can easily test it in your scenario.
http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-compare/
The quickest (and by far the dirtiest) way of (maybe) doing this is to concatenate all of the scripts together, ensuring that you have a GO statement in between each one. Make sure there are no DROP statements in your scripts, or this technique won't work.
Run the concatenated script repeatedly for... I don't know, 10 or so iterations. Chances are you will have their database recreated properly in your test system.
If you're feeling more rigorous, go with Gordon's suggestion. I'm not really aware of a tool which will be able to reconstruct the dependencies, but you may want to take a look at Red-Gate's SQL Compare, which you can get a demo of for free, and can do some pretty magical things.
You can remove all the foreign keys constraints. Then, organize the scripts so that it first creates all the tables, then add back all the foreign keys. Finally create indexes.
Building on Gordon.
Split them up into one table each.
Count the number of FK and sort starting with least first.
Then remove the scripts that run as Gordon suggests.
Another potential problem is that is creates the table and fails on the FK and leaves the table.
You come back later to create the take and the table is already there so it fails.
If you parse them out with Table FKs
Start with Tables with no FK in a list
Then loop thru Tables with FK
Only add to the List if all the FK are already in the List.
If you know .NET then a class with string property table, sting property script, and a property List String of FK property names.
They should parse out pretty clean regex.
Related
I may just be stupid and missing something simple, but how do I make it so when I publish my SSDT project, it either empties or drops the tables in my DB without actually setting the 'CreateNewDatabase' setting to true in my publishing profile.
I have some post deploy inserts that run every time i publish which results in duplicate rows every time.
Just to clarify, every time you deploy you want to clear out the contents of all tables as you have a load of insert statements in the post-deploy scripts to create the data you want and so you want the tables to be empty?
If that is right then that isn’t the way ssdt is normally used, typically the important bit in a database is the data so you wouldn’t want to clear every table on publish so there isn’t anything built in, other than create new database.
That being said if you don’t need any data then you are in a great position, most problems we have is trying to make sure we don’t delete any data by accident :)
There are a couple of approaches, you could change your insert statements to merge statements, there is a proc called sp_generate_merge that you can get from github which generates a merge statement that you can use, this will make your tables look like the data in your post-deploy scripts and is my preferred.
If tables have more than around 2,000 rows then merge statements might not be right so I would just do a delete of truncate table before inserting my data.
Hope I got the question right :)
Ed
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)
I need to audit DDL changes made to a database. Those changes need to be replicated in many other databases at a later time. I found here that one can enable DDL triggers to keep track of DDL activities, and that works great for create table and drop table operations, because the trigger gets the T-SQL that was executed, and I can happily store it somewhere and simply execute it on the other servers later.
The problem I'm having is with alter operations: when a column name is changed from Management Studio, the event that is produced doesn't contain any information about columns! It just says the table was locked... What's more, if many columns are changed at once (say, column foo => oof, and also, column bar => rab) the event is fired only once!
My poor man's solution would be to have a table to store the structure of the table that's going to be altered, before and after the alter operation. That way, I could compare both structures and figure out what happened to which column(s).
But before I do that, I was wondering if it is possible to do it using some other feature from SQL Server that I have overlooked, or maybe there's a better way. How would you go about this?
There is a product meant for doing just that (I wrote it).
It monitors scripts that contained ddl changes, who wrote them and when together with their effect on performance, and it gives you the ability to easily copy them as one deployment script. For what you asked, the free version is sufficient.
http://www.seracode.com/
There is no special feature in SQL Server regarding your need. You can use triggers, but they require a lot of T-SQL coding for proper function. Fast solution would be some third party tools, but they're not free. Please take a look at this answer regarding the third party tools https://stackoverflow.com/a/18850705/2808398
I was wondering what are the best practices in order to write SQL scripts to set up databases for production and/or development, for instance:
Should I include the CREATE DATABASE statement?
Should I create users for the database in the same script?
Is correct to disable FK check before executing the body of the script?
May I include the hole script in a transaction?
Is better to generate 1 script per database than one script for all of them?
Thanks!
The problem with your question is is hard to answer as it depends on the way the scripts are used in what you are trying to achieve. you also don't say which DB server you are using as there are tools provided which can make some tasks easier.
Taking your points in order, here are some suggestions, which will probably be very different to everyone elses :)
Should I include the CREATE DATABASE
statement?
What alternative are you thinking of using? If your question is should you put the CREATE DATABASE statement in the same script as the table creation it depends. When developing DB I use a separate create DB script as I have a script to drop all objects and so I don't need to create the database again.
Should I create users for the database in the same script?
I wouldn't, simply because the users may well change but your schema has not. Might as well manage those changes in a smaller script.
Is correct to disable FK check before executing the body of the script?
If you are importing the data in an attempt to recover the database then you may well have to if you are using auto increment IDs and want to keep the same values. Also you may end up importing the tables "out of order" an not want checks performed.
May I include the whole script in a transaction?
Yes, you can, but again it depends on the type of script you are running. If you are importing data after rebuilding a db then the whole import should work or fail. However, your transaction file is going to be huge during the import.
Is better to generate 1 script per database than one script for all of them?
Again, for maintenance purposes it's probably better to keep them separate.
This probably depends what kind of database and how it is used and deployed. I am developing a n-tier standard application that is deployed at many different customer sites.
I do not add a CREATE DATABASE statement in the script. Creating the the database is a part of the installation script which allows the user to choose server, database name and collation
I have no knowledge about the users at my customers sites so I don't add create users statements also the only user that needs access to the database is the user executing the middle tire application.
I do not disable FK checks. I need them to protect the consistency of the database, even if it is I who wrote the body scripts. I use FK to capture my errors.
I do not include the entire script in one transaction. I require from the users to take a backup of the db before they run any db upgrade scripts. For creating of a new database there is nothing to protect so running in a transaction is unnecessary. For upgrades there are sometimes extensive changes to the db. A couple of years ago we switched from varchar to nvarchar in about 250 tables. Not something you would like to do in one transaction.
I would recommend you to generate one script per database and version control the scripts separately.
Direct answers, please ask if you need to expand on any point
* Should I include the CREATE DATABASE statement?
Normally I would include it since you are creating and owning the database.
* Should I create users for the database in the same script?
This is also a good idea, especially if your application uses specific users.
* Is correct to disable FK check before executing the body of the script?
If the script includes data population, then it helps to disable it so that the order is not too important, otherwise you can get into complex scripts to insert (without fk link), create fk record, update fk column.
* May I include the hole script in a transaction?
This is normally not a good idea. Especially if data population is included as the transaction can become quite unwieldy large. Since you are creating the database, just drop it and start again if something goes awry.
* Is better to generate 1 script per database than one script for all of them?
One per database is my recommendation so that they are isolated and easier to troubleshoot if the need arises.
For development purposes it's a good idea to create one script per database object (one script for each table, stored procedure, etc). If you check them into your source control system that way then developers can check out individual objects and you can easily keep track of versions and know what changed and when.
When you deploy you may want to combine the changes for each release into one single script. Tools like Red Gate SQL compare or Visual Studio Team System will help you do that.
Should I include the CREATE DATABASE statement?
Should I create users for the database in the same script?
That depends on your DBMS and your customer.
In an Oracle environment you will probably never be allowed to do such a thing (mainly because in the Oracle world a "database" is something completely different than e.g. in the PostgreSQL or MySQL world).
Sometimes the customer will have a DBA that won't let you create databases (or schemas or users - depending on the DBMS in use). So you will need to supply that information to the DBA in order for him/her to prepare the environment for your script.
May I include the hole script in a transaction?
That totally depends on the DBMS that you are using.
Some DBMS don't support transactional DDL and will implicitely commit any transaction when you execute a DDL statement, so you need to consider the order of your installation script.
For populating the tables with data I would definitely try to do that in a single transaction, but again this depends on your DBMS.
Some DBMS are faster if you commit only once or very seldomly (Oracle and PostgreSQL fall into this category) but will slow down if you commit more often.
Other DBMS handle smaller but more transactions better and will slow down if the transactions get too big (SQL Server and MySQL tend to fall into that direction)
The best practices will differ considerably on whether it is the first time set-up or a new version being pushed. For the first time set-up yes you need create database and create table scripts. For a new version, you need to script only the changes from the previous version, so no create database and no create table unless it is a new table. Now you need alter table statements becasue you don't want to lose the existing data. I do usually write stored procs, functions and views with a drop and create statment as dropping those pbjects doesn't generally affect the underlying data.
I find it best to create all database changes with scripts that are stored in source control under the version. So if a client is new, you run the create version 1.0 scripts, then apply all the other versions in order. If a client is just upgrading from version 1.2 to version 1.3, then you run just the scripts in version 1.3 source control repository. This would also include scripts to populate or add records to lookup tables.
For transactions you may want to break them up into several chunks not to leave a prod database locked in one transaction.
We also write reversal scripts to return to the old version if need be. This makes life easier if you have a part of a change that causes unanticipated problems on prod (usually performance issues).
The site I am working on as a student will be redesigned and released in the near future and I have been assigned the task of manually searching through every table in the DB the site uses to find tables we can consider for deletion. I'm doing the search through every HTML files source code in dreamweaver but I was hoping there is an automated way to check my work. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this is done in the business world?
If you search through the code, you may find SQL that is never used, because the users never choose those options in the application.
Instead, I would suggest that you turn on auditing on the database and log what SQL is actually used. For example in Oracle you would do it like this. Other major database servers have similar capabilities.
From the log data you can identify not only what tables are being used, but their frequency of use. If there are any tables in the schema that do not show up during a week of auditing, or show up only rarely, then you could investigate this in the code using text search tools.
Once you have candidate tables to remove from the database, and approval from your manager, then don't just drop the tables, create them again as an empty table, or put one dummy record in the table with mostly null values (or zero or blank) in the fields, except for name and descriptive fields where you can put something like "DELETED" "Report error DELE to support center", etc. That way, the application won't fail with a hard error, and you have a chance at finding out what users are doing when they end up with these unused tables.
Reverse engineer the DB (Visio, Toad, etc...), document the structure and ask designers of the new site what they need -- then refactor.
I would start by combing through the HTML source for keywords:
SELECT
INSERT
UPDATE
DELETE
...using grep/etc. None of these are HTML entities, and you can't reliably use table names because you could be dealing with views (assuming any exist in the system). Then you have to pour over the statements themselves to determine what is being used.
If [hopefully] functions and/or stored procedures were used in the system, most DBs have a reference feature to check for dependencies.
This would be a good time to create a Design Document on a screen by screen basis, listing the attributes on screen & where the value(s) come from in the database at the table.column level.
Compile your list of tables used, and compare to what's actually in the database.
If the table names are specified in the HTML source (and if that's the only place they are ever specified!), you can do a Search in Files for the name of each table in the DB. If there are a lot of tables, consider using a tool like grep and creating a script that runs grep against the source code base (HTML files plus any others that can reference the table by name) for each table name.
Having said that, I would still follow Damir's advice and take a list of deletion candidates to the data designers for validation.
I'm guessing you don't have any tests in place around the data access or the UI, so there's no way to verify what is and isn't used. Provided that the data access is consistent, scripting will be your best bet. Have it search out the tables/views/stored procedures that are being called and dump those to a file to analyze further. That will at least give you a list of everything that is actually called from some place. As for if those pages are actually used anywhere, that's another story.
Once you have the list of the database elements that are being called, compare that with a list of the user-defined elements that are in the database. That will give you the ones that could potentially be deleted.
All that being said, if the site is being redesigned then a fresh database schema may actually be a better approach. It's usually less intensive to start fresh and import the old data than it is to find dead tables and fields.