I know this isn't recommended but my development server is 2008 while my production server is 2000.
What is the easiest way to copy databases back and forth? For example, I just created a database with a robust date table which I intend to use in my queries. I figured the easiest way would be to back up the database and restore it to the other server.
What is the most expedient way to do this in either direction?
Backup-copy-restore is just as fast if not faster than detach-copy-attach. Especially if you get great compression with the backup--that copy step will take a lot less time!
You can use BACKUP DATABASE and RESTORE DATABASE, or sp_detach_db and sp_attach_db stored procedures.
Read this article about transfer SQL Server databases to a new location:
"Moving SQL Server 7.0 Databases to a New Location"
Have you considered the Microsoft SQL Server Database Publishing Wizard? It will script your database, including the data to TSQL.
Related
I am using Oracle SQL developer, it has the following tools,
DATABASE copy, DATABASE export and Migrate.
I want to move one schema and all the data in it from one server to another.
What is the difference between these options? Does anything serve what I am looking for?
Database Copy is probably what you want.
Supply two database connections, and we'll take objects and data and copy them from one database to another.
However, if your schema is large, this will be inefficient. The Copy routine does inserts, row-by-row across the jdbc connections.
Database Export takes the objects and data and offloads them to flat files. These flat files could then be used later to put in another database.
Migrate is used to take a database from SQL Server, Sybase, Teradata, Redshift, DB2, etc. to Oracle. It has an online (jdbc row-by-row) data copy and an offline (flat files for SQL Loader) data move mode. For SQL Server/Sybase, we can also translate the T-SQL stored procedures to PL/SQL.
Your solution might also lie elsewhere - Data Pump. We have a wizard for that as well, and works great for very large schemas/databases. You'll just need access to the database OS so you can put the DMP files into a Database Directory.
I have a database in PostgreSQL with millions of records and I have to develop a website that will use this database using Entity Framework (using dotnetConnect for PostgreSQL driver in case of PostgreSQL database).
Since SQL Server and .Net are both native to the Windows platform, should I migrate the database from PostgreSQL to SQL Server 2008 R2 for performance reasons?
I have read some blogs comparing the two RDBMS' but I am still confused about which system I should use.
There is no clear answer here, as its subjective, however this is what I would consider:
The overhead of learning a new DBMS and its tools.
The SQL dialects each RDBMS uses and if you are using that dialect currently.
The cost (monetary and time) required to migrate from PostgreSQL to another RDBMS
Do you or your client have an ongoing budget for the new RDBMS? If not, don't make the mistake of developing an application to use a RDBMS that will never see the light of day.
Personally if your current database is working well I wouldn't change. Why fix what isn't broke?
You need to find out if there is actually a problem, and if moving to SQL Server will fix it before doing any application changes.
Start by ignoring the fact you've got .net and using entity framework. Look at the queries that your web application is going to make, and try them directly against the database. See if its returning the information quick enough.
Only if, after you've tuned indexes etc. you can't make the answers come back in a time you're happy with should you decide the database is a problem. At that point it makes sense to try the same tests against a SQL Server database, but don't just assume SQL Server is going to be faster. You might find out that neither can do what you need, and you need to use faster disks or more memory etc.
The mechanism you're using to talk to a database (DotConnect or Microsoft drivers) will likely be a very minor performance consideration, considering the amount of information flowing (SQL statements in one direction and result sets in the other) is going to be almost identical for both technologies.
In T-SQL (Microsoft SQL 2008), how can I make a new database which will have the same schemas, tables, table columns, indexes, constraints, and foreign keys, but will not contain any data from the original database?
Note: making a full copy, then removing all data is not a solution in my case, since the database is quite big, and such full copy will spend too much time.
See here for instructions: How To Script Out The Whole Database In SQL Server 2005 and SQL Server 2008
In SQL Management Studio, right click on the database and select "Script database as"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178078.aspx
You can then use the script to create an empty one.
Edit : OP did say 2008
I use liquibase for this purpose. Just point liquibase to a different server and it will use your changelog to bring the second database up to date, schema wise. It has the added benefit that the changelog file gets stored in source control and so I can have tagged versions of it, allowing me to restore a database to what a specific version of my app is expecting.
I know ways to script a SQL CE Database, but does anyone know a way to diff two databases and output a script sync one of them to the other (ie generate drops and inserts to make them the same).
I am looking for a way that I can update my hand held applications without having to copy over the existing database. The first step is to be able to make a change script.
Script the two SQL CE databases, and load them into 2 SQL Server Express tables, and use one of the many SQL Server compare tools to compare these.
Are you trying to copy changes in a local SQLS CE database to another local CE database? Or are you trying to replicate changes between multiple CE clients with internet access? If the latter, check out SQLS CE Merge Replication.
I have a database which is part of a closed system and the end-user of the system would like me to write some reports using the data contains in a Sybase SQL Anywhere Database. The system doesn't provide the reports that they are looking for, but access to the data is available by connecting to this ASA database.
The vendor of the software would likely prefer I not update the database and I am basically read-only as I am just doing some reporting. All is good, seal is not broken, warranty still intact, etc,etc..
My main problem is that I am using jConnect in order to read from the database, and jConnect requires some "jConnect Routines" to be installed into the database. I've found that I can make this happen by just doing an "Alter Database Upgrade JConnect On", but I just don't fully understand what this does and if there is any risks associated with it.
So, my question is does anyone know exactly what jConnect routines are and how are they used? Is there any risk adding these to a database? Should I be worried about this?
If the vendor wants you to write reports using jConnect they will have to allow the installation of the JConnect tables.
These are quite safe, where I work the DBA team install these as a matter of course and we run huge databases in production with no impact.
There is an alternative driver that you could use called jTDS. Its open source and supports MS SQL Server and Sybase. I'm not sure if they require the JConnect tables or not.
I think that the additional tables are a bit of anachronism in this day and age.
Looking at ASA 10 docs, there is another driver: the iAnywhere JDBC driver which seems to be going through the ODBC driver, and as such, probably will not require an alteration of the database.
On the other hand, installing the "jConnect system objects" is done by running the script scrits/jcatalog.sql... You can show it the DBAs, if you want to reassure them. It creates some procedures, tables, variables.
The need for this script probably comes from the fact that jConnect talks to both ASE (Sybase) and iAnywhere databases, so it needs a compatibility layer installed in the database...