When I remove tables used in my Azure database (of course after removing the entities), I just use DROP TABLE TABLENAME. This has a bad effect. When I run the mobile service by just starting the browser, I get an Error 500 when I add a new record (of an existing table of course) with my TableControllers. Apparently, I did something wrong. It can be "solved" by creating a completely new database and use this one in my mobile service. The Seed method ensures that the right tables exist (and only the right tables) and everything works fine.
What is the best way (to prevent errors) when removing tables in a database used in Azure Mobile Services. Creating a completely new database seems to be a bit overdone and unneeded.
My first instinct is that it's an issue with Entity Framework. It doesn't generally play nicely with people touching the database. If you looked through your log, you'd probably see Entity Framework issues.
Take a look at this Azure Doc: http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/mobile-services-dotnet-backend-how-to-use-code-first-migrations/
It discusses how to enable code first migrations - I won't elaborate here because there are a couple of steps.
Essentially, the problem is that Entity Framework takes a number of dependencies and when those dependencies change, it just falls over on itself. Let me know if that doesn't help you.
In my code I am trying to check if my entity framework Code First model and Sql Azure database are in sync by using the "mycontext.Database.CompatibleWithModel(true)". However when there is an incompatibility this line falls over with the following exception.
"The model backing the 'MyContext' context has changed since the database was created. Either manually delete/update the database, or call Database.SetInitializer with an IDatabaseInitializer instance. For example, the DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges strategy will automatically delete and recreate the database, and optionally seed it with new data."
This seems to defeat the purpose of the check as the very check itself is falling over as a result of the incompatibility.
For various reasons I don't want to use the Database.SetInitializer approach.
Any suggestions?
Is this a particular Sql Azure problem?
Thanks
Martin
Please check out the ScottGu blog below:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/08/03/using-ef-code-first-with-an-existing-database.aspx
Here is what is going on and what to do about it:
When a model is first created, we run a DatabaseInitializer to do things like create the database if it's not there or add seed data. The default DatabaseInitializer tries to compare the database schema needed to use the model with a hash of the schema stored in an EdmMetadata table that is created with a database (when Code First is the one creating the database). Existing databases won’t have the EdmMetadata table and so won’t have the hash…and the implementation today will throw if that table is missing. We'll work on changing this behavior before we ship the fial version since it is the default. Until then, existing databases do not generally need any database initializer so it can be turned off for your context type by calling:
Database.SetInitializer<Production>(null);
Using above code you are no recreating the database instead using the existing one so I don't think using Database.SetInitializer is a concern unless you have some serious thoughts about using it.
More info: Entity Framework Code Only error: the model backing the context has changed since the database was created
So, it looks like I'm gonna have to replicate a couple of reference tables from my SS2k5 db on SP2k7 in order to do dropdown boxes on my document library. Small tables, maybe a hundred entries, and not often updated. Ths SP Server is not the SS server.
I know how to build triggers, but how do I reference the SP table to update it from the SS trigger, and what are the authentication issues?
Anybody do this before?
I know there is a thing called Business Catalog Data or something like that, but I don't have full privs on this SP site, so I'm likely not to be able to get to that, and I've never used it before, hence the trigger idea.
Does it really need to be real time via a trigger? Or can it be delayed and processed via an ETL job? If the latter is acceptable, I recommend taking a look at Extracting and Loading SharePoint Data in SQL Server Integration Services. I have used this adapter on past projects to transfer data between SQL Server and SharePoint.
P.S. I would not recommend writing directly to the SharePoint content database. Making changes directly to a content database is not supported and is not considered a best practice.
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.
I have large and complex SQL Server 2005 DB used by multiple applications. I want to create a data-dictionary for maintaining not only my DB objects but also cross-reference them against applications that use a specific object.
For example, if a stored procedure is used by 15 diffrent applications I want to record that additional data too.
What are the key elements to be kept in mind so that I get a efficient and scalable Data Dictionary?
So, I recently helped to build a data dictionary for a very large product. We were dealing with documenting more than one-thousand tables using a change request process. I can send you a scrubbed version of the spreadsheet we used if you want. Basically, we captured the following:
Column Name
Data Type
Length
Scale (for decimals)
Whether the column is custom for the application(s) or a default column
Which application(s)/component(s) the column is used in
Release the column was introduced in
Business definition
We also captured information about who requested the addition, their contact information, etc. Our primary focus was on business definition, and clearly identifying why a column was being used or created.
We didn't have stored procedures in our solution, but bear in mind that these would be pretty easy to add to the system.
We used Access for our front-end, even though SQL Server was on the back end. It made it pretty easy for us to build out a rich user interface without much work, using the schema we had already built out.
Hope this helps you get started--feel free to ask if you have additional questions.
I've always been a fan of using the 'extended properties' within SQL Server for storing this kind of meta data. In this way the description of each object lives alongside the object and is accessible by anyone with access to the database itself. I'm sure there are also tools out there that can read these extended properties and turn them into a nicely formatted document.
As far as being "scalable", I don't know of any issues related to adding large amounts of data as extended properties; or I should say I've never had any issues with this.
You can set these extended properties using SQL Server Management Studio 'property' dialog for each table/proc/function/etc and can also use the 'sp_addextendedproperty'.