For reasons I'm not about to explain, We keep a Access database that is to be a copy of a subset of a larger oracle database. It is not feasible to refer to data directly in the Oracle database due to speed issues (don't ask).
Every time a specific application is opened the local Access database is updated from the newest data found to the time of opening the application. First of all this does not capture changes in the existing records. Secondly it does not take into account changes in the source database made after opening the application.
For this reason several checks may be needed when carrying out certain operations in the application. So is it possible to update the local Access database only with changes in the Oracle database in a smarter and faster way than the hard way I am imagining (I'm not a PL/SQL / SQL expert)? Possibly it might be sufficient to look for changes only after a certain date (stored in one of the fields of the recordset retrieved).
Any suggestions?
You might want to look into data replication beethween Oracle en MSAccess databases. For example thru an ODBS drive or sqlserver database. Just google "ms access oracle replication" an see if this solves your problem.
Related
I'm looking for a method or solution to allow for a table to be updated that others are running select queries on?
We have an MS SQL Database storing tables which are linked through ODBC to an Access Database front-end.
We're trying to have a query run an update on one of these linked tables but often it is interrupted by users running select statements on the table to look at data though forms inside access.
Is there a way to maybe create a copy of this database table for the users to look at so that the table can still be updated?
I was thinking maybe a transaction but can you perform transactions for select statements? Do they work that way?
The error we get from inside access when we try to run the update while a user has the table open is:
Any help is much appreciated,
Cheers
As a general rule, this should not be occurring. Those reports should not lock nor prevent the sql system from not allowing inserts.
For a quick fix, you can (should) link the reports to some sql server views for their source. And use this for the view:
SELECT * from tblHotels WITH (NOLOCK)
In fact in MOST cases this locking occurs due to combo boxes being driven by a larger table in from SQL server - if the query does not complete (and access has the nasty ability to STOP the flow of data, then you get a sql server table lock).
You also can see the above "holding" of a lock when you launch a form with a LARGE dataset If access does not finish pulling the table/query from SQL server - again a holding lock on the table can remain.
However, I as a general rule NOT seen this occur for reports.
However, it not all clear how the reports are being used and how their data sources are setup.
But, as noted, the quick fix is to create some views for the reports, and use the no-lock hint as per above. That will prevent the tables from holding locks.
Another HUGE idea? For the reports, if they often use some date range or other critera? MAKE 100% sure that sql server has index on the filter or critera. If you don't, then SQL server will scan/lock the whole table. This advice ALSO applies VERY much to say a form in which you filter - put indexing (sql server side) on those common used columns.
And in fact, the notes about the combo box above? We found that JUST adding a indexing to the sort column used in the combo box made most if not all locking issues go away.
Another fix that often works - and requires ZERO changes to the ms-access client side software?
You can change this on the server:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED
The above also will in most cases fix the locking issue.
I work in my companies small IT department. I have been creating automation via VBA in Excel to pull data from SQL and put it into Excel, then dynamically format and summarize the data. The issue I am running into is the IT department does not want to give anyone outside the IT department SQL Read-Only Access. They view SQL as a privilege not a right...even if it is only Read-Only. They claim security reasons.
Just to be clear, we are NOT installing SQL on these peoples' computers nor do they have the technical understanding on how to write queries. Also, they can already view all the information on the front-end website.
I currently have to specify which database and which tables they can have access to and it takes about 1-2 weeks to give them access (they drag their feet doing the requests).
I am not trying to vent, I am actually wondering do they have a legit concern about security and is this actually a best practice on their part?
The worst thing that could happen is a user knows just enough to connect MS Access to the database, write some poor queries, and grind everything to a halt. You should always have non-IT users access data in a safe, structured way. Especially if this database is a transactional one, and not a reporting database.
Sure, they can access all the data per business process. So then, create a nice, safe query to read all the data and dump it to Excel - if that's what the users want.
Otherwise, IT-created queries - preferably in Stored Procedures - should be reading the data and presenting it to the users.
So it's not a security issue per se. It's more an issue of "we don't want non-IT users getting crafty and bringing down the database with poorly written queries."
I believe the connection properties to the SQL server is embedded in your VBA code, as long as the code is not visible to the user then there is no way they can query the SQL server directly.
Sounds like you need an SQL read only service account which you can use for Query connections. Create an Excel data connection that has the security details to connect to SQL, then your VBA hooks into that data connection.
I'm working on a legacy project, written for the most part in Delphi 5 before it was upgraded to Delphi 2007. A lot has changed after this upgrade, except the database that's underneath. It still uses MS-Access for data storage.
Now we want to support SQL Server as an alternate database. Still just for single-user situations, although multi-user support will be a feature for the future. And although there won't be many migration problems (see below) when it needs to use a different database, keeping two database structures synchronized is a bit of a problem.
If I would create an SQL script to generate the SQL Server database then I would need a second script to keep the Access database up-to-date too. They don't speak the same dialect. (At least, not for our purposes.) So I need a way to maintain the database structure in a simple way, making sure it can generate both a valid SQL Server database as an Access database. I could write my own tool where I store the database structure inside an XML file, which combined with some smart code and ADOX would generate both database types.
But isn't there already a good tool that can do this?
Note: the application also uses ADO and all queries are just simple select statements. Although it has 50+ tables, there's one root "Document" table and the user selects one of the "documents" in this table. It then collects all records from all tables that are related to this document record and stores them in an in-memory structure. When the user saves the data, it just writes the document record and all changed data back to the database again. Basically, this read/write mechanism of documents is the only database interaction in the whole application. So using a different database is not a big problem.
We will drop the MS-Access database in the future but for now we have 4000 customers using this application. We first need to make sure the whole thing works with SQL Server and we need to continue to maintain the current code. As a result, we will have to support both databases for at least a year.
Take a look at the DB Explorer, there is a trial download too.
OR
Use migration wizard from MS Access to SQL Server
After development in Access (schema changes), use the wizard again.
Use a tool to compare SQL Server schemata.
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.
I am developing an Adobe AIR application which stores data locally using a SQLite database.
At any time, I want the end user to synchronize his/her local data to a central MySQL database.
Any tips, advice for getting this right?
Performance and stability is the key (besides security ;))
I can think of a couple of ways:
Periodically, Dump your MySQL database and create a new SQLite database from the dump. You can then serve the SQLite database (SQLite databases are contained in a single file) for your users client to download and replace the current database.
Create a diff script that generates the necessary statements to bring the current database up to speed (various INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE statements). To do this, you must record the time of each change continuously in your database (the time of creation and update for each row, and keep a history of deleted rows).
User's client will download the diff file (a text file of the various statements) and apply it on the local database.
Both approaches have their own pros and cons - by dumping the entire database, you make sure all the data gets through. It is also much easier than creating the diff, however it might put more load on the server, depending on how often does the database gets updated between dumps.
On the other hand, diffing between the database will give you just the data that changed (hopefully), but it is more open to logical errors. It will incur an additional overhead on the client as well, since it will have to create/update all the necessary records instead of just copying a file.
If you're just sync'ing from the server to client, Eran's solution should work.
If you're just sync'ing from the client to the server, just reverse it.
If you're sync'ing both ways, have fun. You'll at minimum probably want to keep change logs, and you'll need to figure out how to deal with conflicts.