After some time googling I've found that Change Data Capture functionality is not supported on SQL Azure. This is frustrating for me because I'd like to implement change tracking without significant code changes, which are needed in case of implementing it.
Is there any built-in functionality for changes tracking in SQL Azure?
In case it really cannot be used in SQL Azure - what libraries or products can provide this functionality for enterprise scale project?
As of v12, SQL Azure supports Change Tracking(NOT Change Data Capture). Which is better than using Triggers and adding extra columns to track changes.
I stumbled on this, which describes the workaround of adding a "Local Data Cache" item to a VS project. Apparently this merely adds some datetime columns to your DB tables and populates them with triggers, which seems like a shoddy alternative in my opinion. (In particular: I'd be cautious about whether that datetime is set as the transaction commit time or as the insertion time, which could cause changes to be missed in concurrency scenarios depending on how you're handling updates.)
Is there a way to backup/track changes to SQL stored procedures in SVN or any other method for tracking changes to SQL? I am using SQL 2008 and am not a DBA but am in charge of a small companies database.
TIA,
Brian Enderle
You might try Red Gate's SQL Source Control and SQL Compare to track changes.
We write procs and save them in Subversion as scripts. You check in each version of the script and then you can easily see previos versions or do a diff between them. If youwant to reduce unnecessary diffs from formatting, get a SQL formatting tool and have everyone format the same way before check in.
All SQL code should be handled this way not just procs. We store table strutures, views etc in Subversion. Of course with tables you havea create script and then alter table table scripts for each change in order, so that you don't wipe our tables with existing data by doing a drop and recreate. We also script out inserts to lookup tables to make them easier to port to other servers as well.
You can store it in svn, but it will have difficulty tracking exact changes if members of your team use different tools to write sql: postgresql seems to be particularly bad at formatting sql. You could consider using a free formatter: Eddie Awad lists some here:
http://awads.net/wp/2005/12/12/format-your-sql-the-easy-way/
Committing your code to source control depends on how you arrange your projects: your scripts could exist in a "misc" folder in an eclipse/visual studio project, or directly committed to svn via TortoiseSVN.
I have two suggestions for you (which I have both used myself):
you can use ScriptDB in order to extract the database schema to your file system and then commit it to svn. I actually set up a scheduled task which invokes ScriptDB every night and then commits the folder to svn (which only commits actually modified files) automatically.
If you are using VS2010 you can open a database project and synchronize it periodically with your database via the schema compare option from the data menu. After that you can commit your changes via tortoiseSVN or Ankh directly from VS.
Firstly, let me apologize for the title, as it probably isn't as clear as I think it is.
What I'm looking for is a way to keep sample data in a database (SQL, 2005 2008 and Express) that get modified every so often. At present I have a handful of scripts to populate the database with a specific set of data, but every time the database is changed all the scripts have to be more or less rewritten and I was looking for some alternatives.
I've seen a number of tools and other software for creating sample data in a database, some free and some not. Are there any other methods I haven’t considered?
Thanks in advance for any input.
Edit: Also, if anyone has any advice at all in dealing with keeping data in sync with a changing application or database, that would be of some help as well.
If you are looking for tools for SQL server, go visit Red Gate Software, they have the best tools. They have a data compare tool that you can use to keep lookup type tables up-to-date and a SQL compare tool that you can use to keep the tables synched up between two datbases. So using SQL data compare, create a datbase with all the sample data you want. Then periodically refresh your testing db (or your prod db if these are strictly lookup type tables) using the compare tool.
I also like the alternative of having a script (you can use Red Gate's tool to create scripts) because that means you can store this info in your source control and use it as part of a deployment package to other servers.
You could save them in another database or the same db in different tables distinguished by the name, like employee_test
Joseph,
Do you need to keep just the data in sync, or the schema as well?
One solution to the data question would be SQL Server snapshots. You create a snapshot of your initial configuration, so any changes to the "real" database don't show up in the snapshot. Then, when you need to reset the table, select from the snapshot into a new table. I'm not sure how it will work if the schema changes, but it might be worth a try.
For generation of sample data, the Database project in Visual Studio has functionality that will create fake/random data.
Let me know if this make sense.
Erick
The Background
My group has 4 SQL Server Databases:
Production
UAT
Test
Dev
I work in the Dev environment. When the time comes to promote the objects I've been working on (tables, views, functions, stored procs) I make a request of my manager, who promotes to Test. After testing, she submits a request to an Admin who promotes to UAT. After successful user testing, the same Admin promotes to Production.
The Problem
The entire process is awkward for a few reasons.
Each person must manually track their changes. If I update, add, remove any objects I need to track them so that my promotion request contains everything I've done. In theory, if I miss something testing or UAT should catch it, but this isn't certain and it's a waste of the tester's time, anyway.
Lots of changes I make are iterative and done in a GUI, which means there's no record of what changes I made, only the end result (at least as far as I know).
We're in the fairly early stages of building out a data mart, so the majority of the changes made, at least count-wise, are minor things: changing the data type for a column, altering the names of tables as we crystallize what they'll be used for, tweaking functions and stored procs, etc.
The Question
People have been doing this kind of work for decades, so I imagine there have got to be a much better way to manage the process. What I would love is if I could run a diff between two databases to see how the structure was different, use that diff to generate a change script, use that change script as my promotion request. Is this possible? If not, are there any other ways to organize this process?
For the record, we're a 100% Microsoft shop, just now updating everything to SQL Server 2008, so any tools available in that package would be fair game.
I should clarify I'm not necessarily looking for diff tools. If that's the best way to sync our environments then it's fine, but if there's a better way I'm looking for that.
An example doing what I want really well are migrations in Ruby on Rails. Dead simple syntax, all changes are well documented automatically and by default, determining what migrations need to run is almost trivially easy. I'd love if there was something similar to this for SQL Server.
My ideal solution is 1) easy and 2) hard to mess up. Rails Migrations are both; everything I've done so far on SQL Server is neither.
Within our team, we handle database changes like this:
We (re-)generate a script which creates the complete database and check it into version control together with the other changes. We have 4 files: tables, user defined functions and views, stored procedures, and permissions. This is completely automated - only a double-click is needed to generate the script.
If a developer has to make changes to the database, she does so on her local db.
For every change, we create update scripts. Those are easy to create: The developer regenerates the db script of his local db. All the changes are now easy to identify thanks to version control. Most changes (new tables, new views etc) can simply be copied to the update script, other changes (adding columns for example) need to be created manually.
The update script is tested either on our common dev database, or by rolling back the local db to the last backup - which was created before starting to change the database. If it passes, it's time to commit the changes.
The update scripts follow a naming convention so everybody knows in which order to execute them.
This works fairly well for us, but still needs some coordination if several developers modify heavily the same tables and views. This doesn't happen often though.
The important points are:
database structure is only modified by scripts, except for the local developer's db. This is important.
SQL scripts are versioned by source control - the db can be created as it was at any point in the past
database backups are created regularly - at least before making changes to the db
changes to the db can be done quickly - because the scripts for those changes are created relatively easily.
However, if you have a lot of long lasting development branches for your projects, this may not work well.
It is by far not a perfect solution, and some special precautions are to be taken. For example, if there are updates which may fail depending on the data present in a database, the update should be tested on a copy of the production database.
In contrast to rails migrations, we do not create scripts to reverse the changes of an update. But this isn't always possible anyway, at least in respect to the data (the content of a dropped column is lost even if you recreate the column).
Version Control and your Database
The root of all things evil is making changes in the UI. SSMS is a DBA tool, not a developer one. Developers must use scripts to do any sort of changes to the database model/schema. Versioning your metadata and having upgrade script from every version N to version N+1 is the only way that is proven to work reliably. It is the solution SQL Server itself deploys to keep track of metadata changes (resource db changes).
Comparison tools like SQL Compare or vsdbcmd and .dbschema files from VS Database projects are just last resorts for shops that fail to do a proper versioned approach. They work in simple scenarios, but I see them all fail spectacularly in serious deployments. One just does not trust a tool to do a change to +5TB table if the tools tries to copy the data...
RedGate sells SQL Compare, an excellent tool to generate change scripts.
Visual Studio also has editions which support database compares. This was formerly called Database Edition.
Where I work, we abolished the Dev/Test/UAT/Prod separation long ago in favor of a very quick release cycle. If we put something broken in production, we will fix it quickly. Our customers are certainly happier, but in the risk avert corporate enterprise, it can be a hard sell.
There are several tools available for you. One is from Red-Gate called SQL Compare. Awesome and highly recommended. SQL Compare will let you do a diff in schemas between two databases and even build the sql change scripts for you.
Note they have been working on a SQL Server source control product for awhile now as well.
Another (if you're a visual studio shop) is the schema and data compare features that is part of Visual Studio (not sure which versions).
Agree that SQL Compare is an amazing tool.
However, we do not make any changes to the database structure or objects that are not scripted and saved in source control just like all other code. Then you know exactly what belongs in the version you are promoting because you have the scripts for that particular version.
It is a bad idea anyway to make structural changes through the GUI. If you havea lot of data, it is far slower than using alter table at least in SQL Server. You only want to use tested scripts to make changes to prod as well.
I agree with the comments made by marapet, where each change must be scripted.
The problem that you may be experiencing, however, is creating, testing and tracking these scripts.
Have a look at the patching engine used in DBSourceTools.
http://dbsourcetools.codeplex.com
It's been specifically designed to help developers get SQL server databases under source-code control.
This tool will allow you to baseline your database at a specific point, and create a named version (v1).
Then, create a deployment target - and increment the named version to v2.
Add patch scripts to the Patches directory for any changes to schema or data.
Finally, check the database and all patches into source-code control, to distribute with devs.
What this gives you is a repeatable process to test all patches to be applied from v1 to v2.
DBSourceTools also has functionality to help you create these scripts, i.e. schema compare or script data tools.
Once you are done, simply send all of the files in the patches directory to your DBA to upgrade from v1 to v2.
Have fun.
Another "Diff" tool for databases:
http://www.xsqlsoftware.com/Product/Sql_Data_Compare.aspx
Keep database version in a versioning table
Keep script file name that was successfully applied
Keep md5 sum of each sql script that has been applied. It should ignore spaces when calculate md5 sum. Must be effective.
Keep info about who applied a script Keep info about when a script was applied
Database should be verified on application start-up
New sql script should be applied automatically
If md5 sum of a script that was already applied is changed, error should be thrown (in a production mode)
When script have been released it must not be changed. It must be
immutable in a production environment.
Script should be written in a way, so it could be applied to different types of database (see liquibase)
Since most ddl statements are auto-committing on most databases, it is best to have a single ddl statement per SQL script.
DDL sql statement should be run in a way, so it can be executed several times without errors. Really helps in a dev mode, when you may edit script several times. For instance, create a new table, only if it does not exist, or even drop table before creating a new one. It will help you in a dev mode, with a script that has not been released, change it, clear md5 sum for this script, rerun it again.
Each sql script should be run in its own transaction.
Triggers/procedures should be dropped and created after each db
update.
Sql script is kept in a versioning system like svn
Name of a script contains date when it was committed, existing (jira) issue id, small description
Avoid adding rollback functionality in scripts (liquibase allow to do that). It makes them more complicated to write and support. If you use exactly one ddl statement per script, and dml statements are run within a
transaction, even failing a script will not be a big trouble to
resolve it
This is the workflow we have been using succesfully:
Development instance: SQL objects are created/updated/deleted in DB using MSSQL Studio and all operations are saved to scritps we include in each version of our code.
Moving to production: We compare schema between dev and prod db using SQL Schema Compare in Microsoft Visual Studio. We update prod using the same tool.
I would like to log changes made to all fields in a table to another table. This will be used to keep a history of all the changes made to that table (Your basic change log table).
What is the best way to do it in SQL Server 2005?
I am going to assume the logic will be placed in some Triggers.
What is a good way to loop through all the fields checking for a change without hard coding all the fields?
As you can see from my questions, example code would be veeery much appreciated.
I noticed SQL Server 2008 has a new feature called Change Data Capture (CDC). (Here is a nice Channel9 video on CDC). This is similar to what we are looking for except we are using SQL Server 2005, already have a Log Table layout in-place and are also logging the user that made the changes. I also find it hard to justify writing out the before and after image of the whole record when one field might change.
Our current log file structure in place has a column for the Field Name, Old Data, New Data.
Thanks in advance and have a nice day.
Updated 12/22/08: I did some more research and found these two answers on Live Search QnA
You can create a trigger to do this. See
How do I audit changes to sql server data.
You can use triggers to log the data changes into the log tables. You can also purchase Log Explorer from www.lumigent.com and use that to read the transaction log to see what user made the change. The database needs to be in full recovery for this option however.
Updated 12/23/08: I also wanted a clean way to compare what changed and this looked like the reverse of a PIVOT, which I found out in SQL is called UNPIVOT. I am now leaning towards a Trigger using UNPIVOT on the INSERTED and DELETED tables. I was curious if this was already done so I am going through a search on "unpivot deleted inserted".
Posting Using update function from an after trigger had some different ideas but I still believe UNPIVOT is going to be the route to go.
Quite late but hopefully it will be useful for other readers…
Below is a modification of my answer I posted last week on a similar topic.
Short answer is that there is no “right” solution that would fit all. It depends on the requirements and the system being audited.
Triggers
Advantages: relatively easy to implement, a lot of flexibility on what is audited and how is audit data stored because you have full control
Disadvantages: It gets messy when you have a lot of tables and even more triggers. Maintenance can get heavy unless there is some third party tool to help. Also, depending on the database it can cause a performance impact.
Creating audit triggers in SQL Server
Log changes to database table with trigger
CDC
Advantages: Very easy to implement, natively supported
Disadvantages: Only available in enterprise edition, not very robust – if you change the schema your data will be lost. I wouldn’t recommend this for keeping a long term audit trail
Reading transaction log
Advantages: all you need to do is to put the database in full recovery mode and all info will be stored in transaction log
Disadvantages: You need a third party log reader in order to read this effectively
Read the log file (*.LDF) in sql server 2008
SQL Server Transaction Log Explorer/Analyzer
Third party tools
I’ve worked with several auditing tools from ApexSQL but there are also good tools from Idera (compliance manager) and Krell software (omni audit)
ApexSQL Audit – Trigger based auditing tool. Generated and manages auditing triggers
ApexSQL Log – Allows auditing by reading transaction log
Under SQL '05 you actually don't need to use triggers. Just take a look at the OUTPUT clause. OUTPUT works with inserts, updates, and deletes.
For example:
INSERT INTO mytable(description, phone)
OUTPUT INSERTED.description, INSERTED.phone INTO #TempTable
VALUES('blah', '1231231234')
Then you can do whatever you want with the #TempTable, such as inserting those records into a logging table.
As a side note, this is an extremely easy way of capturing the value of an identity field.
You can use Log Rescue. It quite the same as Log Explorer, but it is free.
It can view history of each row in any tables with logging info of user, action and time.
And you can undo to any versions of row without set database to recovery mode.