I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the old
runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
guess I'm not really that surprised.
I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only, and
could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that table
is updated (keeping an audit log).
Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis, and
only the one orders table that really gets hit.
However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
MauryFor uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source. If you are
replicating to a table which has the identity property on this column you
will need to use the not for replication switch. By default Transactional
replication will not put the identity property on columns on the
subscriber/data destination.
Merge is intended for clients which are frequently offline and when you need
bi-directional replication. With careful partitioning you will avoid the
collisions which will break the d part of ACID.
If you need bi-directional replication you can use bi=-directional
transactional replication.
--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6016EF86-8F9A-4D0D-9C83-CF08AB06107A@.microsoft.com...
> I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
> fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the
old
> runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
> guess I'm not really that surprised.
> I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
> is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only,
and
> could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
> updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that
table
> is updated (keeping an audit log).
> Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
> replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
> problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
> there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis,
and
> only the one orders table that really gets hit.
> However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
> Maury|||"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
No good here, one of the tables WILL be bi-directional.
> Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source.
This is a bit confusing. In my case I am sharing one updating table. If I
turn this off, does this mean that a new row will always be assigned a
"local" identity, one that might be different on the remote machine?
Maurysql
Friday, March 30, 2012
Merge or Transaction Replication?
I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the old
runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
guess I'm not really that surprised.
I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only, and
could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that table
is updated (keeping an audit log).
Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis, and
only the one orders table that really gets hit.
However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
Maury
For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source. If you are
replicating to a table which has the identity property on this column you
will need to use the not for replication switch. By default Transactional
replication will not put the identity property on columns on the
subscriber/data destination.
Merge is intended for clients which are frequently offline and when you need
bi-directional replication. With careful partitioning you will avoid the
collisions which will break the d part of ACID.
If you need bi-directional replication you can use bi=-directional
transactional replication.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6016EF86-8F9A-4D0D-9C83-CF08AB06107A@.microsoft.com...
> I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
> fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the
old
> runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
> guess I'm not really that surprised.
> I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
> is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only,
and
> could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
> updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that
table
> is updated (keeping an audit log).
> Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
> replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
> problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
> there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis,
and
> only the one orders table that really gets hit.
> However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
> Maury
|||"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
No good here, one of the tables WILL be bi-directional.
> Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source.
This is a bit confusing. In my case I am sharing one updating table. If I
turn this off, does this mean that a new row will always be assigned a
"local" identity, one that might be different on the remote machine?
Maury
fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the old
runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
guess I'm not really that surprised.
I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only, and
could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that table
is updated (keeping an audit log).
Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis, and
only the one orders table that really gets hit.
However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
Maury
For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source. If you are
replicating to a table which has the identity property on this column you
will need to use the not for replication switch. By default Transactional
replication will not put the identity property on columns on the
subscriber/data destination.
Merge is intended for clients which are frequently offline and when you need
bi-directional replication. With careful partitioning you will avoid the
collisions which will break the d part of ACID.
If you need bi-directional replication you can use bi=-directional
transactional replication.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6016EF86-8F9A-4D0D-9C83-CF08AB06107A@.microsoft.com...
> I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
> fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the
old
> runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
> guess I'm not really that surprised.
> I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
> is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only,
and
> could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
> updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that
table
> is updated (keeping an audit log).
> Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
> replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
> problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
> there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis,
and
> only the one orders table that really gets hit.
> However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
> Maury
|||"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
No good here, one of the tables WILL be bi-directional.
> Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source.
This is a bit confusing. In my case I am sharing one updating table. If I
turn this off, does this mean that a new row will always be assigned a
"local" identity, one that might be different on the remote machine?
Maury
Merge or Transaction Replication?
I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the old
runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
guess I'm not really that surprised.
I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only, and
could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that tabl
e
is updated (keeping an audit log).
Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis, and
only the one orders table that really gets hit.
However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
MauryFor uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source. If you are
replicating to a table which has the identity property on this column you
will need to use the not for replication switch. By default Transactional
replication will not put the identity property on columns on the
subscriber/data destination.
Merge is intended for clients which are frequently offline and when you need
bi-directional replication. With careful partitioning you will avoid the
collisions which will break the d part of ACID.
If you need bi-directional replication you can use bi=-directional
transactional replication.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6016EF86-8F9A-4D0D-9C83-CF08AB06107A@.microsoft.com...
> I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
> fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the
old
> runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
> guess I'm not really that surprised.
> I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
> is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only,
and
> could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
> updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that
table
> is updated (keeping an audit log).
> Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
> replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
> problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
> there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis,
and
> only the one orders table that really gets hit.
> However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
> Maury|||"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
No good here, one of the tables WILL be bi-directional.
> Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source.
This is a bit confusing. In my case I am sharing one updating table. If I
turn this off, does this mean that a new row will always be assigned a
"local" identity, one that might be different on the remote machine?
Maury
fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the old
runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
guess I'm not really that surprised.
I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only, and
could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that tabl
e
is updated (keeping an audit log).
Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis, and
only the one orders table that really gets hit.
However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
MauryFor uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source. If you are
replicating to a table which has the identity property on this column you
will need to use the not for replication switch. By default Transactional
replication will not put the identity property on columns on the
subscriber/data destination.
Merge is intended for clients which are frequently offline and when you need
bi-directional replication. With careful partitioning you will avoid the
collisions which will break the d part of ACID.
If you need bi-directional replication you can use bi=-directional
transactional replication.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Maury Markowitz" <MauryMarkowitz@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:6016EF86-8F9A-4D0D-9C83-CF08AB06107A@.microsoft.com...
> I have a branch office I would like to connect to our database, which is
> fronted by an Access ADP project. I'm having problems with security (the
old
> runtime 17), but in other small tests it seems the system is very slow. I
> guess I'm not really that surprised.
> I am considering using replication to set up a second server. Our workflow
> is fairly simple. There are many tables that are effectively read-only,
and
> could be replicated using any method. There is one table that will see
> updates from the remote site, as well as a trigger that fires when that
table
> is updated (keeping an audit log).
> Can anyone suggest the best method for this case? It would seem that Merge
> replication would be fine, but the documentation suggests I will have
> problems with ACID on merge, and little else. Transactional sounds fine,
> there's only about 5 tables that see updates on any sort of daily basis,
and
> only the one orders table that really gets hit.
> However that table uses a auto-incrementing pkey. Will that even work?
> Maury|||"Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> For uni-directional data flow transactional replication will work best.
No good here, one of the tables WILL be bi-directional.
> Identity values will be assigned on the publisher/data source.
This is a bit confusing. In my case I am sharing one updating table. If I
turn this off, does this mean that a new row will always be assigned a
"local" identity, one that might be different on the remote machine?
Maury
Merge on MSDE: how can do it ?
Hello everybody,
i need to set a MSDE database as 'publisher' for merge replication.
My difficult is that I haven't understand how I cand do it.
I have not Enterprise Manager for set the merge, How I can Do it ?
Thank you so much,
You could create a merge publication on your normal server and get EM to
script it out. This would be in the form of a series of system stored
procedure calls. After changing the servername, you should have a script
that could be run on MSDE.
Alternatively, you could create it using SQLDMO. I don't have an example of
merge, but I do have 2 examples of transactional on
www.replicationanswers.com.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:%23eBzl8WAFHA.2016@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Thank you for your answer,
but i need a tool that make it for me.
There are any open-source/free software that i can use ?
thank you!
ck1;
|||I had a browse of the 3rd party tools for managing MSDE,
but the 3 I looked at didn't list replication
administration. Scripting out a subscriuption is not
difficult, but I can appreciate the functionality you are
looking for and I'll also keep an eye on this thread to
see if anyone else has such a GUI tool.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||What language? I have a library (VB6 and .NET versions) to set up merge
replication programmatically that's been used in a couple of client projects
successfully..
GUI can be put on it relatively easily.
Paul
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:26e001c502c7$94d45ce0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I had a browse of the 3rd party tools for managing MSDE,
> but the 3 I looked at didn't list replication
> administration. Scripting out a subscriuption is not
> difficult, but I can appreciate the functionality you are
> looking for and I'll also keep an eye on this thread to
> see if anyone else has such a GUI tool.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
sql
i need to set a MSDE database as 'publisher' for merge replication.
My difficult is that I haven't understand how I cand do it.
I have not Enterprise Manager for set the merge, How I can Do it ?
Thank you so much,
You could create a merge publication on your normal server and get EM to
script it out. This would be in the form of a series of system stored
procedure calls. After changing the servername, you should have a script
that could be run on MSDE.
Alternatively, you could create it using SQLDMO. I don't have an example of
merge, but I do have 2 examples of transactional on
www.replicationanswers.com.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:%23eBzl8WAFHA.2016@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Thank you for your answer,
but i need a tool that make it for me.
There are any open-source/free software that i can use ?
thank you!
ck1;
|||I had a browse of the 3rd party tools for managing MSDE,
but the 3 I looked at didn't list replication
administration. Scripting out a subscriuption is not
difficult, but I can appreciate the functionality you are
looking for and I'll also keep an eye on this thread to
see if anyone else has such a GUI tool.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||What language? I have a library (VB6 and .NET versions) to set up merge
replication programmatically that's been used in a couple of client projects
successfully..
GUI can be put on it relatively easily.
Paul
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:26e001c502c7$94d45ce0$a401280a@.phx.gbl...
> I had a browse of the 3rd party tools for managing MSDE,
> but the 3 I looked at didn't list replication
> administration. Scripting out a subscriuption is not
> difficult, but I can appreciate the functionality you are
> looking for and I'll also keep an eye on this thread to
> see if anyone else has such a GUI tool.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
sql
Merge Module with Verbose Logging?
Is this possible?
When troubleshooting MSDE install issues in the field, verbose logging
would be nice. But as far as I can see, it's only available for the
standalone install (/L*v), and not the merge module.
I should probably add that my install is an Installshield-based
compressed setup.exe.
When troubleshooting MSDE install issues in the field, verbose logging
would be nice. But as far as I can see, it's only available for the
standalone install (/L*v), and not the merge module.
I should probably add that my install is an Installshield-based
compressed setup.exe.
Merge Metadata Cleanup
Hello Everyone,
I am running SQL2K with sp3, continuous merge replication, only one
subscriber.
My current setting for Subscription expiration is the default of 7, I
have just recently changed this from the default of 14 days, as our
Subscriber is basically always available.
I am still trying to figure out how to cleanup my merge metadata. From
what I have read and from what I understand ,
sp_mergemetadataretentioncleanup is automatically run, if the agent
running Merge has the Parameter for MetadataRententionCleanup set to 1
I am under the assumption that if I have has the Parameter for
MetadataRententionCleanup set to 1 it should automatically be cleaning
up my metadata. Even though I have it set to 1 it does not appear
like it is actually cleaning out MSmerge_contents or MSmerge_tombstone.
These tables just keep growing.
Now if I had this parameter set to 0 then I would need to use
sp_mergecleanupmetadata to clean up MSmerge_contents or
MSmerge_tombstone.
Would there ever be a reason for running both?
I did go to BOL but I read the following about using
sp_mergecleanupmetadata:
If you want to run sp_mergecleanupmetadata without the subscriptions
being marked for reinitialization:
Stop all updates to the publication and subscription databases.
Unfortunately, I cannot stop all updates as our servers need to be
available 24/7.
Does anyone run this without stopping replication first? And if you do
run it do you have MetadataRententionCleanup set to 0?
If anyone can help I truly would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Barbara
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
are you using anonymous subscribers? Merge replication does not clean
up the metadata as efficiently with anonymous subscrptions as opposed
to named subscriptions.
|||Thanks Hilary.
Unfortunately no, we do not have any anonymous subscriptions only one
named subscriptions.
Any other ideas?
Barbara
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
|||I believe I have my answer:
1) sp_mergecleanupmetadata
2) sp_mergemetadataretentioncleanup
The First should be used for topologies with SQL Server 2000 SP1 or less
(which is not my case)
The Second one is the one to control the process manually for SQL Server
> SP1 which is your case and when the MetadataretentionCleanup is set to
0 (not automatic)
There is also a catch though the second sp is executed automatically by
merge Agent at at startup! when MetadataretentionCleanup is set to 1
therefore when in continuous mode it will be called only once.
So I'll need to manually run sp_mergemetadataretentioncleanup or setup a
job that will do it for me on a scheduled basis.
Thanks for your help Hilary.
Barbara
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
I am running SQL2K with sp3, continuous merge replication, only one
subscriber.
My current setting for Subscription expiration is the default of 7, I
have just recently changed this from the default of 14 days, as our
Subscriber is basically always available.
I am still trying to figure out how to cleanup my merge metadata. From
what I have read and from what I understand ,
sp_mergemetadataretentioncleanup is automatically run, if the agent
running Merge has the Parameter for MetadataRententionCleanup set to 1
I am under the assumption that if I have has the Parameter for
MetadataRententionCleanup set to 1 it should automatically be cleaning
up my metadata. Even though I have it set to 1 it does not appear
like it is actually cleaning out MSmerge_contents or MSmerge_tombstone.
These tables just keep growing.
Now if I had this parameter set to 0 then I would need to use
sp_mergecleanupmetadata to clean up MSmerge_contents or
MSmerge_tombstone.
Would there ever be a reason for running both?
I did go to BOL but I read the following about using
sp_mergecleanupmetadata:
If you want to run sp_mergecleanupmetadata without the subscriptions
being marked for reinitialization:
Stop all updates to the publication and subscription databases.
Unfortunately, I cannot stop all updates as our servers need to be
available 24/7.
Does anyone run this without stopping replication first? And if you do
run it do you have MetadataRententionCleanup set to 0?
If anyone can help I truly would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Barbara
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
are you using anonymous subscribers? Merge replication does not clean
up the metadata as efficiently with anonymous subscrptions as opposed
to named subscriptions.
|||Thanks Hilary.
Unfortunately no, we do not have any anonymous subscriptions only one
named subscriptions.
Any other ideas?
Barbara
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
|||I believe I have my answer:
1) sp_mergecleanupmetadata
2) sp_mergemetadataretentioncleanup
The First should be used for topologies with SQL Server 2000 SP1 or less
(which is not my case)
The Second one is the one to control the process manually for SQL Server
> SP1 which is your case and when the MetadataretentionCleanup is set to
0 (not automatic)
There is also a catch though the second sp is executed automatically by
merge Agent at at startup! when MetadataretentionCleanup is set to 1
therefore when in continuous mode it will be called only once.
So I'll need to manually run sp_mergemetadataretentioncleanup or setup a
job that will do it for me on a scheduled basis.
Thanks for your help Hilary.
Barbara
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Merge Large Tables
What is the best way to merge two really large tables (7,000,000 rows each,
and very wide)?
The table definitions are the same for both tables.
Right now I am using a insert into statement with a selection from one table
at a time, but it takes way too long. I don't need it to be logged. A all
or nothing result is fine for me. I don't think DTS is an option because I
need to run this from a C# app. I think my only other option is using the
BCP api to select the data and load it into the new table, but this just
seems like the wrong way to go.
Any other ways to go with this?
Shawn
Select *
into [NewTable]
From
Select * [Table1]
Union All
Select * [Table2]
"Shawn Meyer" <me@.me.com> wrote in message
news:O4GhS6QQFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What is the best way to merge two really large tables (7,000,000 rows
> each,
> and very wide)?
> The table definitions are the same for both tables.
> Right now I am using a insert into statement with a selection from one
> table
> at a time, but it takes way too long. I don't need it to be logged. A all
> or nothing result is fine for me. I don't think DTS is an option because
> I
> need to run this from a C# app. I think my only other option is using the
> BCP api to select the data and load it into the new table, but this just
> seems like the wrong way to go.
> Any other ways to go with this?
> Shawn
>
and very wide)?
The table definitions are the same for both tables.
Right now I am using a insert into statement with a selection from one table
at a time, but it takes way too long. I don't need it to be logged. A all
or nothing result is fine for me. I don't think DTS is an option because I
need to run this from a C# app. I think my only other option is using the
BCP api to select the data and load it into the new table, but this just
seems like the wrong way to go.
Any other ways to go with this?
Shawn
Select *
into [NewTable]
From
Select * [Table1]
Union All
Select * [Table2]
"Shawn Meyer" <me@.me.com> wrote in message
news:O4GhS6QQFHA.580@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> What is the best way to merge two really large tables (7,000,000 rows
> each,
> and very wide)?
> The table definitions are the same for both tables.
> Right now I am using a insert into statement with a selection from one
> table
> at a time, but it takes way too long. I don't need it to be logged. A all
> or nothing result is fine for me. I don't think DTS is an option because
> I
> need to run this from a C# app. I think my only other option is using the
> BCP api to select the data and load it into the new table, but this just
> seems like the wrong way to go.
> Any other ways to go with this?
> Shawn
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)