Settings and activity

4 results found

1. Navigate back and forth between occurrences in search result

   10 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  ·  SQL Search » Graphical User Interface  ·  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
   Anonymous shared this idea  ·  Dec 9, 2019

2. Make SQL Data Easier to Merge (Static Data)

   530 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…)
   37 comments  ·  SQL Source Control » Static Data  ·  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
   under review  ·  Kendra responded

   Thanks for this suggestion and for the many comments and upvotes. I realize that this is a pain point.

   I have a few shorter-term workarounds to summarize as well as some information on the longer roadmap in this update. I know these shorter-term workarounds aren’t perfect (I summarize the pros and cons), but I’m posting them as they may help a few folks.

   Workaround 1) When data changes to static data need to be made, use a “relink the table” pattern
   One can “cleanly rescript” a static data table in SQL Source Control by:

   • Unlinking the static data table
   • Committing
   • Relinking the static data table
   • Committing

   Pro: This works with the GUI and requires no special knowledge or comfort with TSQL. This may help folks with just a few static data tables.
   Con: This requires extra steps and results in extra commits in the history, which I realize can be annoying, particularly if the team doesn’t squash commit history when merging or do similar things.

   Workaround 2) Use a post-deployment script to manage static data tables instead of linking them
   Another option is to not use the “link static data tables” feature at all, and instead manage the static data table yourself with a custom script.

   I’ve added a code sample called “post-deployment script to manage static data for a table with an identity column” into our reference on post-deployment scripts: https://documentation.red-gate.com/soc7/common-tasks/working-with-pre-post-deployment-scripts/static-data

   Pro: This gives you complete control over the TSQL.

   Con: Your post-deployment script might become quite complex and create its own issue in merge conflicts, depending on how many static data tables you have and whether you are using the post-deployment script for other things.

   An alternate approach using SQL Change Automation
   If customers have licenses for SQL Change Automation, the SCA Migrations approach does not have this issue and has additional features for flexibility with static data:

   • Since migrations only script out the data which has changed, this scripting issue of the entire table doesn’t occur in SCA – it only ever needs to generate commands for what has been modified since the last migration
   • Supports column filtered static data tables in the SCA plugin in SSMS
   • Supports multiple post-deployment scripts, in case there is a preference to manage static data tables in dedicated post-deployment scripts
   • Allows approaches like bulk loading larger static data tables by supporting SQLCMD variables in migration and post-deployment scripts

   If there are other use cases where a migrations approach would add value to the team – such as easily being able to run data modification statements as part of deployments, or being able to customize the TSQL for schema changes – then changing from SQL Source Control to SQL Change Automation might make sense.

   Roadmap
   I’ve chatted with our engineering teams and Redgate does have the desire to better support this scenario longer term. This is not a “quick fix” scenario and will likely require a rethinking of the way static data is managed within the tool.

   While the “rethinking” bit of this has begun, we don’t specifically have this on the SQL Source Control roadmap (https://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-source-control/roadmap) at this point. We do have improved support for use with Git feature branches as a future candidate on the roadmap, and we do know from research with many customers that static data is quite important to folks. While I can’t make any promises, I think we are likely to be able to offer an improvement in this area.

   Thanks for this suggestion and for the many comments and upvotes. I realize that this is a pain point.

   I have a few shorter-term workarounds to summarize as well as some information on the longer roadmap in this update. I know these shorter-term workarounds aren’t perfect (I summarize the pros and cons), but I’m posting them as they may help a few folks.

   Workaround 1) When data changes to static data need to be made, use a “relink the table” pattern
   One can “cleanly rescript” a static data table in SQL Source Control by:

   • Unlinking the static data table
   • Committing
   • Relinking the static data table
   • Committing

   Pro: This works with the GUI and requires no special knowledge or comfort with TSQL. This may help folks with just a few static data tables.
   Con: This requires extra steps and results in extra commits in the history, which I realize can… more

   An error occurred while saving the comment
   Anonymous commented  ·  Aug 21, 2019  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

   Redgate, you must be kidding! Please get your priorities straight on this one!
   This is not a feature request. This is one solid bug that makes this product pretty much useless!

   How can you possibly switch the order of records between left and right side and expect to get any kind of useful comparison result??

   Just to make sure you really understand the implications of this: My coworker and I are working in a Shared DB setup and while my SQL Source Control reports the static data table as unchanged, her SQL Source Control does flag it as changed because hers is exporting the records for the exact same table in a different order than mine!

   Please treat this as the critical bug that it really is and get it fixed!

   I can not believe that you have been kicking this can down the road for 2 years now...

   Save Submitting...
   Anonymous supported this idea  ·  Aug 21, 2019

3. Speed It Up on LARGE Databases

   11 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  ·  SQL Data Compare  ·  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
   An error occurred while saving the comment
   Anonymous commented  ·  Aug 9, 2019  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

   Same here - offer an option to
   a) just read and list out all tables and columns, then let the user do the mapping manually. Do not try to default auto-map!
   b) refresh the list when the user explicitly requests it (refresh button)

   I have 5000 tables with a total of 1.1 Mio columns; and all I want to do is compare data in one single table that has 6 columns. I dont care about any of the other tables!

   And please don't ask me now if it wouldn't make sense to rearrange the tables and break some of them out into a different DB...

   Save Submitting...
   Anonymous supported this idea  ·  Aug 9, 2019

4. Prevent "new version" update banner from hiding the tab bar

   5 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  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  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
   Anonymous shared this idea  ·  Aug 7, 2019