Is there any way to have data migrations on production database not to be with SQL?
We are using MigratorDotNet and when we build a new funcionality for the application that changes the scheme of the database and we need to do some data updates we have to do this complex and troublesome SQL statements so the data is consistent on production.
Was wondering if there was another way to do this, what are the bests practices to do this? Any ideas on other possible solutions?
We cannot use something like NHibernate because then we have to keep fixing old migrations when the scheme changes, and that can be error prone.
The trick is to use your migration tool and fold said data manipulation statements into the migrations. We use an extended version of the same thing typically for a few projects and it can definitely handle that trick.
If you're already using a migration tool like Migrator.NET then I'd say you're most of the way there. Complex schema/data changes are just a fact of life in the RDBMS world.
Try mite. It let's you do anything that you can do with sql and use sql to do it but have the ability to ensure your database is on the desired version and not risk executing a script that has already run (or miss a script), leaving your database in a consistent state.
If your developers adopt this. Deployments are a simple mite update and then you know problems are product related or data related (but not schema related).
https://github.com/soitgoes/mite
Let me know what you think. I developed this and have been using this with my team for years with great success.
Related
I need to be able to save all the data that gets updated like so.
User inserts a car Model (Make, Type, Year). Comes back and Updates the Year. I need to be able to save both so they have a history of all the work that they did. What is the best way to do that?
There are a number of ways to do this. One way is to write some SQL triggers and do it entirely in the database. Have a look here for some clues:
Another way is to do the auditing within the Entity Framework code. There is a nuget package called AuditDbContext with the source on Codeplex.
You need to decide if you want to do the auditing in EF or in SQL. Obviously if you need to audit everything and you might sometimes access the database from different applications which don't use the same EF datalayer (e.g. different technologies, etc), then SQL triggers might well be the way to go.
Maybe (if you are facing the "history" issue more often) the CQRS pattern is of interest for you; a good primer, Microsoft on CQRS. There is a framework build on .NET for this pattern (I have not tried it yet): NCQRS.
If you really just want the requirement in your question fulfilled now and you are using SQL Server 2010 or later, then Change Tracking may be another option. I would prefer that to triggers (but in the end all such dark processing logging solutions introduce additional risk).
I've been thinking of ways to improve managing changes to our database structure. I have a build server that creates nightly builds, so I was thinking we could somehow create database dumps, backups, and scripts from the test environment as part of the build process. Then when deploying an update to the client we could use a tool like DBDiff to create the database update script.
Is anybody doing something similar? Is it even a good idea? Maybe some good tips what to use to create these dumps on build server?
Rather than identifying the differences, I recommend to keep a proper script that creates a database from scratch.
We are quite satisfied with using Liquibase to manage all DB migration in our projects. It knows which "patches" have been applied and ensures that only those that are missing will be applied to the target database.
this is possible.
the differencing is the hard part. once you identify the differences, you need to construct the appropriate sql, then apply it. you can either apply it directly, or create some script that you can run after review.
when both sides change, then you need to decide if the target system should keep its change or if that should be completely removed.
remember that when the target system changes also include data, and if you remove some table or column, then your referential integrity might be completely ruined.
one more thought. you will need access to the target system in order to determine the diff. if this is a generic utility, you will need to make it an executable after the fact, not part of the build.
You will find the Visual Database Tools very useful here.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/y5a4ezk9.aspx
There is a schema compare built right into Visual Studio (it can also be run from the command line). There is also a database project that contains a complete set of scripts for the database and the objects that it contains. This can be checked into source control along with your source code.
You can deploy a new database based on these scripts with a context menu click.
Have a look at http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/Database_CI.aspx and http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/evodb.html - there's a fair amount of thinking that's already available.
We are currently looking at the Juneau CTP release, SQL Tools for Visual Studio. It has a snapshot and schema comparison feature. Basically, it can auto-generate scripts between two schemas for you. If you use this against two versions of your database, it will give you an upgrade script.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/data/gg427686
Here at Red Gate we're close to releasing a solution which solves that precise issue using SQL Source Control and SQL Compare. We have an early access program which will allow you to try this out. Please visit the following link for sign-up details.
http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?p=46951#46951
The problem: we have one application that has a portion which is used by a very small subset of the total users, and that part of the application is running off of a separate database as well. In a perfect world, the schemas of the two databases would be synced up, but such is not the case. Some migrations have been run on the smaller database, most haven't; and furthermore, there is nothing such as revision number to be able to easily identify which have and which haven't. We would like to solve this quandary for future projects. During a discussion we've come up with the following possible plan of action, and I am wondering if anyone knows of any project which has already solved this problem:
What we would like to do is create an empty database from the schema of the large fully-migrated database, and then move all of the data from the smaller non-migrated database into that empty one. If it makes things easier, it can probably be assumed for the sake of this problem specifically that no migrations have ever removed anything, only added.
Else, if there are other known solutions, I'd like to hear them as well.
You could use a schema comparison tool like Red-Gate's SQL Compare. You can synchronize the changes and not lose any data. I wrote about this and many alternative tools ranging widely in price here:
http://bertrandaaron.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/re-blog-the-cost-of-reinventing-the-wheel/
The nice thing is that most tools have trial versions. So, you can try them our for 14 days (fully functional) and only buy it if it meets your expectations. I can't speak for the other tools, but I've been using RG for years and it is a very capable and reliable tool.
(Updated 2012-06-23 to help prevent link-rot.)
Red-Gate's SQL Compare as Aaron Bertrand mentions in his answer is a very good option. However, if you are not permitted to purchase something, an option is to try something like:
1) For each database, script out all the tables, constraints, indexes, views, procedures, etc.
2) run a DIFF, and go through all the differences and make sure that the small DB can accept them. If not implement any changes (including data) necessary onto the small DB so it can accept the changes.
3) create a new empty database from the schema of the large DB
4) import the data from the small DB into the nee DB.
You could also reverse engineer your database into Visual Studio as a database project. Visual Studio Team Suite Database Edition GDR R2 (I know long name) has the capability to do a schema comparison and data comparison, but the beauty of this approach is that you get all of your database into a nice database project where you can manage change and integrate with source control. This would allow you to build from a common source and deploy consistent changes.
I currently have a website with three builds: development, staging and production. Each of those has it's own MySQL database instance. Each of the instances has different data in it which should not change (orders).
My question is, if I made changes to the structure of the development database, is there an easy way to propogate those changes to staging and production without affecting the data?
Thanks.
Just do all of your schema changes with scripts which you keep in source control. When you release code to staging, then you will ship with the build the scripts to update the schema, and use the same ones when you ship to production.
It's that easy.
Don't EVER manually hack the database schema. Test your migration and rollback scripts (making rollback scripts is a VERY good idea).
I'm sure there is a better solution than the one I'll tell you over here... But until someone posts one... Here you go...
If you can script your database strcture (or you have them already scripted on your source control), you can compare the scripts side by side and then extract the differences to run them on the required database...
I'm sure there are tools out there that would do all that for you... But I can't recall any names and if they're free or not... I hope someone helps you more then :)
This is a problem that I come to on occasion and have yet to work out an answer that I'm happy with. I'm looking for a build system that works well for building a database - that is running all of the SQL files in the correct database instance as the correct user and in the correct order, and handling dependencies and the like properly.
I have a system that I hacked together using Gnu Make and it works, but it's not especially flexable and frankly can be a bit of a pain to work with in some situations. I've considered looking at things like SCons and CMake too, but I don't know how much better they are likely to be, or if there's a better system out there that already exists...
Just a shell script that runs all the create statements and imports in the proper order. You may also find migrations (comes with rails) interesting. It provides a make like infrastructure that let's you maintain a database the structure of which evolves over time.
Say you add a new column to some table. In migrations you'd write a snippet of code which describes the requirements for adding the column and also to rollback the change so you can switch to different versions of your schema automatically.
I'm not a big fan of the tight integration with rails, though, but the principles behind it are very interesting.
For SQL Server, I just use a batch file with SQLCMD.EXE and a bunch of .SQL files. It's not perfect, but it seems to work.
For my database, I use Migrator.NET
This is a .NET framework which allows you to create classes in where you define your DDL statements.
The framework comes with a command-line tool with which you can execute your 'migrations' in the correct order.
It also has a msbuild - task, so you can integrate it in a continuous integration build as well.
First export full DDL files describing all tables, views, source code
(procedures, functions, packages), sequences, and grants of a DB schema
See
Is there a tool to generate a full database DDL for SQL Server? What about Postgres and MySQL?
I created a database build system (part SQL-parser, part make file) to put these files together in a DB creation script using python.