| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> I have a question
<0> I have a development server
<0> with a db . and i have the live server that i want to push the db to it
<0> now it seems like my 2 biggest problems with pushing a db live will be Ownership of the table/db/sprocs etc
<0> and the fact that soooooo often everything is pushed but constraints
<1> why not export/import?
<0> and the stuff like indexes/identities , defaultvalues are not pushed
<0> is there an easier method - to push a whole db live that avoids this h***le?
<1> yeah, export/import
<0> :-/
<0> yeah thats what i've been using
<2> Arrakis : so you don't need any data that's already in live?
<0> thats where most of the problems
<0> well GuntherX - eventually i'd like to get it to that point where i could preserve data integrity.
<0> but at this point i'm just going to deal with the first step
<0> every time i import / export - no matter how many options i go through
<0> those 2 problems are always my biggest problems
<2> which problems?
<0> db/table/sproc ownership
<2> er
<2> ownership or permissions?
<0> and for some reason it seems like no matter what indexes/primary keys / default values / constraints almost never get pushed
<0> ownership
<0> each db has a specific user that it wnats to
<0> but all the time the objects go over with dbo in most cases
<0> *that i want it to use
<2> that requirement sounds ****ed up
<0> why :-/
<2> you *need* to have multiple objects in a single db with the same name and just different ownership?
<0> nooo
<0> one user - one db
<0> i usually go dbName usrName
<2> er, then the owner of the objects should always be dbo
<0> :-/
<3> stfu everyone
<0> hi Quant
<3> what's up
<0> nadda
<0> think im going to go cycling one last time
<0> before this supposed cold front ends our beautiful weather
<2> Arrakis : why would you want or need objects to be named for a user account instead of dbo?
<0> because thats the way i was taught
<2> Arrakis : if there is only going to be one of each object anyway in a given database?
<0> and that methodology seems to work best for the architecture that I'm using
<2> Arrakis : really? by whom?
<0> which is all web based scenario
<0> where every individual user has one database
<0> no other database
<2> 'individual user'?
<0> persona has a website
<0> given a database with a username and p***word
<0> person be has a website given a database with a username and a p***word
<2> ok... and the uid for each user/database is aliased to dbo for that database?
<0> ummmm no :-/
<0> its created as a login
<2> ok, so that's problem one...
<0> and thena dded to the db and given a role of db_owner
<2> if all the objects in a db are owned by dbo, then there are no migration issues, as dbo is always the same internal user_id for any database
<0> and each alias can have its own p*** then?
<2> the displayed user name is just a bit of normalised data, it's the internal id that counts
<2> you create a userid/pwd on the server, then you alias that a/c to dbo in the relevent database
<2> that means that for that database, the login of fred with pwd ernie has the same rights as dbo
<2> and appears as dbo when creating objects
<2> much much cleaner
<2> the only other way would be to keep the user table in the master database in sync between dev and prd
<2> remember that accounts and pwds are created at a server level - they can be 'mapped' to *any* a/c in a given database
<0> yeah
<2> so, that's problem one resolved - what was the second?
<0> i've seen aliases before
<0> used themonce or twice for a few uuid conflicts with attached / transferred dbs
<0> imma bbl
<0> thanks for the help GuntherX
<2> np
<2> for the second... chances are that contraints are not getting pushed because the dependent objects are not being created in the right order
<4> hoom
<4> is there a special way of doing where on an outer join?
<2> for example, if you have a normalised table with an FK contraint on a lookup - like an address table with a state field that FKs to a state table - if you don't create the state table first (and fill it), then the address table contraint will fail
<2> sessm : no
<4> works til i add a where clause that compares a value on an outer join table... ooo...
<2> sessm : did you read the rules?
<4> interesting.
<4> this statement on sql2k "select id from contact left outer join orders on orders.cid = contact.cid where orders.type = 4" doesnt seem to work. but..
<4> this statement on sql2k "select id from contact left outer join orders on orders.cid = contact.cid and orders.type=4" works...
<2> "doesn't seem to work" is not sufficient information
<5> That's normal
<4> interesting.
<5> The join is separate from the where criteria
<4> ah~. makes sense~ thanx
<4> whats a good book on sql?
Return to
#sql
or
Go to some related
logs:
#firebird
#beginner
yankeegrl
#computers
#beginner
#nhl
#cisco
#worldcup
postgre datediff
#computers
|
|