254 results found

1. Exlcude specific items from Deploy script from Comparison Results screen

   SQL Compare
   Sometimes I want to exclude specific items from deployment script when doing a comparison. For example, when comparing a table, exclude a specific trigger on that table.

   This is a SSDT feature that is missing in SQL Compare.

   I know custom filters can be used to achieve this, but this it is cumbersome for "ad hoc" choices, and I could not achieve the results wanted for the example below.

   Using a trigger associated as with a table as an example:
   Assume there is a schema change with a specific table that includes a trigger. Assume that the trigger on the source should not be copied to the target, but other schema changes on the table should be copied.
   In the comparison results screen - allow an action on the row for the modified table to exclude the trigger from the deploy script.

   The resulting deployment script would simply exlude the trigger from update.

   A more shophisticated choice would be "preserve". This would exfectively keep the target definition (if it exists) - a choice required is a table rebuild is required.

   The existing filters panel should not be affected by this (beyond reflecting the resulting filter rule from the exclusion made on the table).

   SQL Compare
   Sometimes I want to exclude specific items from deployment script when doing a comparison. For example, when comparing a table, exclude a specific trigger on that table.

   This is a SSDT feature that is missing in SQL Compare.

   I know custom filters can be used to achieve this, but this it is cumbersome for "ad hoc" choices, and I could not achieve the results wanted for the example below.

   Using a trigger associated as with a table as an example:
   Assume there is a schema change with a specific table that includes a trigger. Assume that the trigger… more

   8 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

2. Compare/Merge objects with different names and/or reside in same DB

   (1) the ability to compare 'similar/same' objects that are name differently
   (2) the ability to compare objects in the same database that are named differently
   (3) the ability to merge specific changes that are found, in both directions

   8 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

3. Excluding a role in v. 14 should exclude its permissions as was the case for v. 13

   Using the SQL Compare v. 13 CLI to exclude a role that exists only in the target database used to also skip permissions granted to that role. The resulting script did not revoke the role's permissions in the target. Now, in v. 14 (14.4.11.17350), excluding the role only keeps the role from being dropped. The resulting script revokes all permissions granted to that role in the target. We think this new behavior represents a defect that should be fixed. See my support request 225533. I am told there is a bug report that addresses this issue: SC-10183. However, I don't know the exact nature of that report, and was informed that it is a low priority. Without the fix, in order to continue using the latest version of SQL Compare, we need to change our methodology for pairing database permissions to users maintained in our company's access auditing system. Ironically, we created the methodology in part to match how SQL Compare (pre-v14) handled role exclusions. Like every customer, we rely on these tools having consistent behavior over time to avoid introducing defects into our production systems.

   Using the SQL Compare v. 13 CLI to exclude a role that exists only in the target database used to also skip permissions granted to that role. The resulting script did not revoke the role's permissions in the target. Now, in v. 14 (14.4.11.17350), excluding the role only keeps the role from being dropped. The resulting script revokes all permissions granted to that role in the target. We think this new behavior represents a defect that should be fixed. See my support request 225533. I am told there is a bug report that addresses this issue: SC-10183. However, I don't… more

   8 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. Object permissions in separate files instead of inside object definition

   Presently, when syncing database to folder, all object permissions are stored inside object definition files. We would like to change the way permissions are stored; we would like to have an option to store object permissions in separate files.

   For example, the following entry appears in dbo.A.sql file:

   CREATE TABLE [dbo].[A]
   (
   [b] [int] NULL
   ) ON PRIMARY
   GO
   GRANT SELECT ON [dbo].[A] TO [role_x]

   We save data into folders which are then checked into GIT as branches. Or goal is to be able to track all table changes in branches before merging into master branch, which is automatically deployed to prod. Additionally, we want to track all changes to permissions inside GIT, but only for PROD database, and not DEV databases, since dev databases have different permissions. Since object permissions and schema are stored in the same files, it is very difficult to merge dev changes into PROD without accidentally modifying object permissions.

   Presently, when syncing database to folder, all object permissions are stored inside object definition files. We would like to change the way permissions are stored; we would like to have an option to store object permissions in separate files.

   For example, the following entry appears in dbo.A.sql file:

   CREATE TABLE [dbo].[A]
   (
   [b] [int] NULL
   ) ON PRIMARY
   GO
   GRANT SELECT ON [dbo].[A] TO [role_x]

   We save data into folders which are then checked into GIT as branches. Or goal is to be able to track all table changes in branches before merging into master branch, which is automatically deployed… more

   8 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

5. option to ignore case in schema name compare

   In version 11.1.30.30, I have 2 database where objects only differ because on schema has names that are camel cased and the other is all lowercased; everything else is identical but keeps showing in list of 'objects tat exist in both but are different'

   7 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. The application window for SQL compare is very hard to resize...

   Provide more support for resizing the app window...not the instance window ...that fine. The app window expands to the whole screen....this gives me the irrates as I need to get at stuff behind the SQL compare window

   7 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   3 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

7. Test for database users before creating them

   For example, add an "IF" as below:

   IF NOT EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.database_principals where name = 'xxx\yyyyyy')
   CREATE USER [xxx\yyyyyy] FOR LOGIN [xxx\yyyyyy]
   GO

   7 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   2 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. Filter Improvements

   I use SQL Compare very rarely. Most of the time I use it to find the differences between two databases with different structure version. And therefore I need to see in a blink of an eye what dml triggers are missing or outdated or whatever. Currently there is no possibility to filter for table objects like dml triggers.
   It would be very nice if there is an option to restrict the view depending on sub elements like Index, Column, Collation, Trigger.
   Maybe it would be enough if the seach bar at the top would also search the SQL view of each entry, so that it restricts the list view and I am able to see quickly what matters most to me.

   I use SQL Compare very rarely. Most of the time I use it to find the differences between two databases with different structure version. And therefore I need to see in a blink of an eye what dml triggers are missing or outdated or whatever. Currently there is no possibility to filter for table objects like dml triggers.
   It would be very nice if there is an option to restrict the view depending on sub elements like Index, Column, Collation, Trigger.
   Maybe it would be enough if the seach bar at the top would also search the SQL view of… more

   7 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

9. Merge stored procedure differences line by line

   Add the ability to merge differences between two stored procedures into a new file that can be ran on the server on a line by line basis.

   I.E. 10 lines are different in a stored procedure between a file in a folder and a file on the server. I only want to promote 5 of those differences up to the SQL server, adding the ability to merge those 5 changes into a new file would be super helpful instead of having to copy the file from the server and hand merge them.

   7 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

10. automap link directly to view/edit table mapping

    When SQL Compare apply an automapping on column name of a table, there is a little yellow image with "Auto Map" displayed on the table. It would be nice if a menu or double click or else would be availaible to open directly the column mapping of this table. It would be faster to see the mapping applied and correct it if needed.

    7 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

11. Option for 'Ignore Users'

    Can we have an option that allow us to ignore the database users?

    Thanks

    7 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

12. Ability to safely edit the previous server lists

    Please see this thread

    https://forum.red-gate.com/discussion/comment/162865#Comment_162865

    I would suggest that because the proposed solution requires knowledge and access to the Registry this should be a feature to edit the list.

    7 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Don't use "Added" and "Removed" in the Comparison Results report

    I just want to share the differences between two databases with the developer and will have to explain that added or removed does not mean that anything was actually added or removed yet.

    7 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

14. Ability to Compare from a dacpac to a Database and generate sync scripts

    I understand that you have the ability to compare DBs to sqlproj but it would be nice to have it compare with a dacpac. That way I can build a project, persist that build number and deploy from that dacpac.

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

15. Memory Leak

    I use SQL compare periodically as I have many clients who have the same core DB and so during development I use SQL compare iteratively to update schema, table and stored procedure changes through the 30 instances of the databases. I noticed that it progressively gets slower and consumes more RAM. Obviously I can close and restart to get a new allocation and it speeds up again. But I noticed that when starting it was consuming about 180Meg, then after maybe 15 compares the memory allocation was close to 1Gig. So something is definitely being allocated and not freed up.

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

16. My projects - compare all projects

    Add an additional "Compare all" button to compare all projects in the actual "Look in" folder. Show a simple is equal/different indicator on each project for the results.

    Consider using VS-style solution files or kind of meta-scp.

    This is somewhat similar to https://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/141379-sql-compare/suggestions/13517250-auto-compare-after-oping-a-project-mass-compare

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

17. Comparing TFS Changesets

    When comparing a TFS Changeset in SQL Compare it will show all schema changes that are different between the Changeset and the destination, but within a TFS Changeset, there is metadata within the Changeset to indicate which specific database objects are being changed within the Changeset. It would be a huge timesaver to allow SQL Compare to be able to only select the database objects that are actually being impacted by the Changeset by default. The situation I have is this:

    Developer 1 - Adds a table to database A and checks in the change to the development database, but cannot yet promote it to the testing database
    Developer 2 - Adds a table to database A and checks in the change to the development database. In order to promote his change he compares the changeset to the testing database and SQL Compare display a list of objects that are different. That list for Database A includes Developer 1's table and Developer 2's table, but Developer 2 doesn't always care about what Developer 1's table does since it is not in his changeset. It would be nice if it continues to show Developer 1's table, but that it would automatically select Developer 2's table because it was specifically marked as changed as part of Develper 2's changeset. For 1 table, it is not that big of a deal, but when a changeset includes multiple tables, multiple stored procedures, etc it can be very tedious to go through and remember each object that was impacted and not mistakenly select a table that was not part of the changeset. By defaulting it to select this Developer 2 still has the ability to select/deselect other objects that he wants to include, but it at least cuts out the work needed to manually include tables that he knows need to be compared since it is part of the changeset.

    When comparing a TFS Changeset in SQL Compare it will show all schema changes that are different between the Changeset and the destination, but within a TFS Changeset, there is metadata within the Changeset to indicate which specific database objects are being changed within the Changeset. It would be a huge timesaver to allow SQL Compare to be able to only select the database objects that are actually being impacted by the Changeset by default. The situation I have is this:

    Developer 1 - Adds a table to database A and checks in the change to the development database, but… more

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

18. give more information in header

    The report header shows only the database name. Seeing BobsDB -> BobsDB isn't useful. I would rather have something like: DevServerName.BobsDB --> ProdServerName.BobsDB

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

19. risk

    There are some changes that are riskier than others, not because of the type of change, but because of the object. For example, some changes require rebuilding a table or index. This can be a simple process if there are a few hundred rows, but it's a risky, slow process if there are a few billion.

    It would be nice to add a "risk" value to certain tables, so that when I see a list of changes, I can determine if this particular object ought to be separated out as a different deployment.

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

20. Single object deployment

    When you right click on an object to see the deployment script and other options, include options for running immediately the script to target database. (to make it more interesting,to run the change script to any of the 2 compared databases).
    Also, this should be dome on the right and left scripts at the bottom of the page.
    Thanks

    6 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating