Hello all. We are just getting started with replication and I'm
wondering if there is a way to not have deletes replicated. I know I
could manually remove the delete trigger from every table but I'm
intrested in have this a bit more automatic (like when its creating the
subscription).
Thanks
Stephen
I can switch off replication deletes be running the following:
EXEC sp_changearticle @publication = 'PUBNAME', @article = 'ARTICLE1', @property = 'del_cmd', @value = 'NONE'
I believe I can the effectively then remove the delete stored procedure from the replicated database.
And all this wroks no problem. However, when I come to add a new article, "Article2" to my publication it also snapshots and reinitialised the "Article1". How can I prevent the snapshot agent from re-initialising "Article1".
Thanks.
Using Merge replication between SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server CE,
is there any way that row deletes could occur on the subscriber without a reinitialize
or explicit delete of row on publisher.
More specifically, if there is a row filter that returns a days worth of data with each
days pull, for example, and the filter looked like
select <columns> from Table where UpdateDate < GETDATE() and UpdateDate >= DATEADD(d,1,GETDATE())
would there be some implicit delete at subscriber each day because data sent changed?
My research indicates this does not happen, but I have a colleague who thinks differently.
I have transactional replication set up between two SQL Server 2000 databases. In some cases when I perform an UPDATE on a published table on the the publisher, SQL Server attempts to perform a DELETE followed by an INSERT on the subscriber using the stored procedures created during the initial snapshot.
Why does it do this?
How can I stop it doing this and force an UPDATE on the publisher to call the UPDATE procedure on the subscriber?
Thanks
I have a snapshot replication is running and now I want to stop the replication for a while. Is it possible to do that? If it is then where I can set to stop it? Please help.
Thanks for Help!
I wanted to remove my Northwind database. But that database is currently used for replication. I'll have to stop the replication first before I can remove it.
So how to stop the replication?
Thanks!
amy
How do you stop Replication?It is causing blocking. URLs....
View 9 Replies View RelatedHi,
I am not an sql server person, but have been asked to stop replication on sql server. Can someone please let me know how to do this.
Thanks,
Jo
Hi out there!My publisher database holds an table with an column that is to small.The related subscriber-table I already have expanded (column fromvarchar50 -> varchar60).But I can't expand the table in the distributer-base, i get the error thatit can't be done because of replication.How can I expand my column? Have I to delete replication? If yes, how?Greetings Bjørn
View 2 Replies View Relatedis it possible to stop replication in cmd prompt for MSSQL2005? Thanks in advance!
View 1 Replies View RelatedWhat is impact, if i stop and start Synchronization, for one subscription.
When i start, will it resync all tables by dropping and recreating at subscription.
On Publisher, Â
from Location Publiction,Â
  right click on subscription,Â
      select View Synchronization Status,  From here, stop and start
Under EM's Replication Monitor/Publishers/pub1/publisher1 there is a "Validate Subscriptions" option on the right-click menu. Since I see unexplained Replication Validation activity I think that the "Validate Subscriptions" option is turned on. But there is no "turn-off" button or way to say "stop." Does anyone know how this "feature" works?
Thanks
I have transactional replication configured where the publisher and subscriber are on two different servers. Yesterday a database upgrade was carried out, and the DBA dropped replication by issuing sp_removedbreplication on the published database. The subscription is still set up.
I have two questions:
1 - What is the safest way to temporarily switch off replication without losing the publication or subscription? As far as I was aware (my replication knowledge isn't great), simply disabling the relevant agents would do the job.
2 - I now have the task of creating the publication again (fortunately we have a saved script). If I recreate this publication, will I be able to point the existing subscription at it?
I was hoping someone could explain how cascading deletes work in Peer to Peer replication on SQL 2005 SP2, the child tables are also being replicated.
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi,
We are developing a new oltp application using SQL Server 2000 and are debating whether to use "cascade delets" or not. In earlier apps, we had issues using cascade deletes like someone deleted parent by mistake and all child records got deleted OR SQL Server crashed in middle of cascade delete and records were lost or performance became an issue when there were huge # of child records to be deleted,etc.
Are there any recommendations for/against using Cascade deletes and when to use and when NOT to use cascade deletes ?
Thanks
Satish
I need some suggestions concerning the issue cascading deletes in a self-referencing table, i.e. a table with a foreign key pointing at the primary key in itself. Although SQL Server still does not support cascading deletes the declarative way there are some other ways to handle this situation. One common way is to use trigger coding with the simple structure
CREATE TRIGGER DelCascadeTrig
ON self_ref_tab
FOR DELETE
AS
DECLARE @C_FK xxxxxx
SELECT @C_FK = C_FK FROM DELETED
BEGIN
DELETE self_ref_tab
FROM self_ref_tab, deleted
WHERE self-_ref_tabC_FK = deleted.C_PK
END
where C_PK is the primary key column and C_FK the foreign key column. The problem is that this simple pattern does not work with self-referencing tables, because the removal of dependent rows deeper layer (n-2, n-3 etc. if the originating delete request is level n and the first level of dependant deletes handled by the trigger code is n-1) would require the delete trigger to fire more than once for the same delete operation. As far as I know, in ver. 6.x triggers are executed only once per SQL statement and in this case the n-2, n-3 etc. level rows would have been left as "orphans".
In ver. 7.0 I suppose this should work fine because of the new recursive trigger execution possibility (trigger will fire up to 32 recursive times per SQL statement), but in the meanwhile (i.e. my case util we have upgraded all our servers) the delete logic for a cascading, self-referencing relationship must be handled completely within one execution of the trigger.
My question is now: does anyone know anything about any common algorithm or trigger code example solving this problem.
Thanks in advance
Bjorn Ehnberg
When I setup a relationship in Access I can specify that Primary Key deletes cascade down to the Forgien Key. So when I delete an Order Header it cleans up all the items in the Order Details table for me automatically.
Can I get this same functionality in SQL Server 7 without having to write triggers or are triggers the only way?
thanks
dog
I'm wondering if anyone has compared the speed of different kinds of deletes.
Assuming super large tables, I wonder, what is the speed ordering for the following operations:
* Remove a column
* Remove a row
* Remove a table
I'll experiment to see if I can get numbers comparing the speeds, but, if someone's already done the work, I'd love to know
thanks
I haven't used cascading deletes in the past but we're starting a new database and it seems like a good way to go to keep data clean. Or at least it did seem like a good way until I ran some tests. I have 3 tables.
People PeopleEmails Email
(pk)peopleid (pk)peopleid (pk)emailid
fname (pk)emailid address
lname emailtype
password
In this structure, the peopleemails table is simply an association table between the email and people table. I have setup up relationships in a diagram so that when a person is deleted, it cascades to peopleemails and removes the entry there. I also had a cascade set up hoping that when an entry was deleted from peopleemails, it would remove it from the email table but this is not happening. The relationship between email and peopleemail is primary key table email.emailid and foreign key table peopleemail.emailid. Is there a way to get this to work to remove the email address if a peopleemail entry is removed? Thanks.
Hello,
I have three tables:
CREATE TABLE TASKS
(
SEQNO INTEGER NOT NULL IDENTITY (10000,1),
NAME VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT '' NOT NULL UNIQUE,
PRIMARY KEY (SEQNO)
);
CREATE TABLE JOBS
(
SEQNO INTEGER NOT NULL IDENTITY (10000,1),
NAME VARCHAR(20) DEFAULT '' NOT NULL UNIQUE,
PRIMARY KEY (SEQNO)
);
CREATE TABLE JOBTASKS
(
SEQNO INTEGER NOT NULL IDENTITY (10000,1),
JOBID INTEGER DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL REFERENCES JOBS(SEQNO),
TASKID INTEGER DEFAULT 0 NOT NULL REFERENCES TASKS(SEQNO),
PRIMARY KEY (SEQNO)
);
When I delete a record in JOBS I would like to create a trigger that would delete the related records in JOBTASKS.
This is my attempt; but it does not work.
CREATE TRIGGER JOBS_BEFORE_DELETE
ON JOBS
FOR DELETE
AS BEGIN
DELETE FROM JOBTASKS
WHERE JOBID = (SELECT SEQNO FROM DELETED);
END;
Thanks,
Steve
I want to use one stored procedure to delete rows in three different tables - how do I write this for Sql Server 2000 please?
PROCEDURE dbo.DeleteSubmission @C_ID intASDELETE *FROM tblCompaniesWHERE C_ID = @C_ID
DELETE *FROM tblStoresWHERE CS_ID = @C_ID
DELETE *FROM tblDistributorsWHERE CD_ID = @C_ID
RETURN
I'm hoping someone has seen this before because I have no idea what could be causing it.
I have an SQL 2005 database with multiple tables and several triggers on the various tables all set to run after insert and update.
My program inserts a record into the "items" via a SP that returns the index of the newly added row. The program then inserts a row into another table that is related to items. When the row is inserted into the second table it gets an error that it cannot insert the record because of a foreign key restraint. Checking the items table shows the record that was just inserted in there is now deleted.
The items record is only deleted when I have my trigger on that table enabled. Here is the text of the trigger:
GOSET ANSI_NULLS ONGOSET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ONGOALTER TRIGGER [dbo].[TestTrigger]ON [dbo].[items]AFTER INSERT
AS BEGIN
SET NOCOUNT ON;
INSERT INTO tblHistory(table_name, record_id, is_insert) VALUES ('items', 123, 1)
END
tblHistory's field types are (varchar(50), BigInt, bit).
As you can see there is nothing in the trigger to cause the items record to be deleted, so I have no idea what it could be? Anyone ever see this before?
Thanks in advance!
I have a logins table, a loginroles table (intermediate), and a roles table
When I delete a login from logins I need to delete the roles for that login from loginroles. I know I have to use cascade deletes, but I cannot find the option in sql 2005.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thank You,Jason
hello,
Can you give me an example of suppression under DOS, of the files with under-directories by exec cmdshell
thank you in advance
Pascal
It appears that SQL7 does not support options to set cascade updates and deletes in the Relations tab of the property sheet, but it is included in
View 4 Replies View RelatedI have new client we changed the file retention period on for log ship on SQL 2000. Now the files are not being deleted. I looked at all the sp's but could not finde the one that actually deletes the log file that was copied over. I could just rebuild log ship but this is on a prod box, was trying to figure out what and when the files get deleted, and by what sp
View 2 Replies View RelatedHi
I keep data in four seperate locations, each with different data retention.
the problem is, i keep the publisher "thin" - only 24 hrs of data) the data in the relevant tables is about 250000 a day) and these deletes are blocked at the subscribers by commenting out the body of the repl proc.
this does however cause a burst in bandwith & locks the subscribers, even though no actual delete takes place.
does anyone know if you can actuaklly NOT REPLICATE delete commands for specified tables at all - so that the message of the delete wont even be SENT to the subscriber?
Des
Hello everybody,
We have a Master table in the Db who's PK is referenced in at least 60 tables as FK.
We want to delete all the dependent records in 1 go without using multiple delete statements or any cursor or loop.
Is it possible? Please advice.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ashish
Hello all.
Please help me shed light on the following problem:
I am deleting from 2 tables in a transaction. I experience a deadlock occasionally when deleting.
Here are the tables:
create table TABLE_1 (
ID integer not null,
TYPE_CD varchar(50) not null,
STATUS_ID integer not null,
NAME varchar(500) not null,
COMMENT varchar(500) null,
CREATED_DATE datetime not null,
CREATED_BY varchar(15) not null,
LASTMOD_DATE datetime null,
LASTMOD_BY varchar(15) null,
constraint PK_TABLE_1 primary key nonclustered (ID)
)
create table TABLE_2 (
TASK_ID integer not null,
TABLE_1_ID integer not null,
COMMENT varchar(500) null,
constraint PK_TABLE_2 primary key nonclustered (TASK_ID, TABLE_1_ID)
)
Table table_2 is an intersection table between table_1 and another lookup table (called task).
Whenever I delete from table_1 I need to delete from table_2 to maintain integrity.
The reason I do not have clustered indexes on the tables is b/c they start out empty (every day a housekeeping task deletes from them. Unfortunately I cannot change this...).
In my (web/jsp) application before I delete, I select from table_1 to get data I need to remember after the delete.
In order to avoid the "select for update problem", I use the "UPDLOCK" hint in the select like this:
select *
from table_1 WITH (UPDLOCK),
table_2 WITH (UPDLOCK)
where table_1.id = table_2.table_1_id "
and table_1.id = ?
and table_2.task_id = ?
I then issue my deletes in the following order:
delete from table_1
where task_id = ?
and table_1_id = ?
and then,
delete from table_1 where id = ?
The application sets the isolation level to READ COMMITTED.
The above 3 sql statements are executed as part of a transaction. Occasionally, when I drive the application, I get a deadlock. This happens intermittently. I have been able to reproduce the problem by attempting to delete records really fast, one after the other from the (web) front end.
When the deadlock occurs these are the locks that are held by the running processes:
Blocked SPID (10):
============
Object Lock Type Mode Status Owner Index Resource
app DB S GRANT Sess TABLE_2
app.dbo.TABLE_1 TAB IX GRANT Xact TABLE_2
app.dbo.TABLE_1 KEY U GRANT Xact PK_TABLE_2 (a400f609034c)
app.dbo.TABLE_1 RID U GRANT Xact TABLE_2 1:157:3
app.dbo.TABLE_1 PAG IU GRANT Xact PK_TABLE_2 1:443
app.dbo.TABLE_1 PAG IU GRANT Xact TABLE_2 1:157
app.dbo.TABLE_2 KEY S WAIT Xact PK_TABLE_2 (6501eda29ac1)
app.dbo.TABLE_2 KEY S GRANT Xact PK_TABLE_2 (ef007b1066ea)
app.dbo.TABLE_2 TAB IS GRANT Xact TABLE_2
app.dbo.TABLE_2 PAG IS GRANT Xact PK_TABLE_2 1:252
Blocking SPID (12):
=============
Object Lock Type Mode Status Owner Index Resource
app DB S GRANT Sess TABLE_2
app.dbo.TABLE_2 KEY X GRANT Xact PK_TABLE_2 (6501eda29ac1)
app.dbo.TABLE_2 RID X GRANT Xact TABLE_2 1:176:3
app.dbo.TABLE_2 TAB IX GRANT Xact TABLE_2
app.dbo.TABLE_2 PAG IX GRANT Xact PK_TABLE_2 1:252
app.dbo.TABLE_2 PAG IX GRANT Xact TABLE_2 1:176
I could not figure out what the problem is. Please help me with this.
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks in advance
I have the following tableCREATE TABLE [tbl_Items]([item_id] int IDENTITY(1,1) CONSTRAINT PK_tbl_Items__item_idPRIMARY KEY,[parent_id] int DEFAULT(NULL) CONSTRAINTFK_tbl_Items__item_id__parent_id REFERENCES [tbl_Items]( [item_id] ) ONDELETE NO ACTION ON UPDATE NO ACTION)My Intention was to create a table that when I delete a record, allrecords that have on the [parent_id] field the deleted record[item_id].I am trying to avoid having to use triggers or create a storedprocedure that firsts delete the children (recursively) and thendeletes the parent.Is there any way to do this by changing my table definition here?
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi, I'm using SQL server 2000, and I have set up two tables, table Aand table B. Table A and B have a foreign key constraint such that ifan entry is deleted in table A, then all the entries in table Bassociated with that entry are deleted as well. I imagine that I canfind out the number of records that are deleted in table A when Iexecute the SQL, but is there an easy way of determining the number ofrecords that will be deleted in table B?Thanks,Dan
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi guys,
A simple question of good practices: is it better to have a cascade update/delete on a table? Or is it better to do it "by hand" in a SP?
Thanks a lot.
I seem to be having a problem on all of my SQL servers. WHen I or a developer attmept to do a delete on a table i get a Log file for database is full. I truncate the log try again and get the same error. IT doesnt seem to matter how much is being deleted or how big the table is. THis is very strange and very frustrating.
Thanks
David