Data on one server, structure on another [modified]
-
Hi, I wondered if Sql Server supported somehow to do that? By that, I mean having the structure on one database and the data on another. The purpose is to be able to lunch a set of integration tests that would get the data on the test database but would execute the stored procedures from the original database. I didn't found much on google, so I suppose this isn't possible. Edit: I didn't said, that I'd like to leave the stored procedures as they are, prefixing table names with a database would be too much work. Ideally it should be a config parameter or something like that.
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 8:06 AM
Try CREATE SYNONYM. I think that's your best bet.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
Hi, I wondered if Sql Server supported somehow to do that? By that, I mean having the structure on one database and the data on another. The purpose is to be able to lunch a set of integration tests that would get the data on the test database but would execute the stored procedures from the original database. I didn't found much on google, so I suppose this isn't possible. Edit: I didn't said, that I'd like to leave the stored procedures as they are, prefixing table names with a database would be too much work. Ideally it should be a config parameter or something like that.
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 8:06 AM
Still does not make sense to me. Why not take a copy of the procedures and run them on the test server. We use SQL Compare to do this except we do it the other way around. Develop on the dev server, test on UAT and deploy to Production, SQL Compare does the synching of the code in both steps. When we require another environment we take a backup of production onto yet another server. Then the only change is the server name and we don't use that in the qualification in the code. I admit this may become complicated if you are using distributed databases but we use Oracle for any really big data (multi TB)
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Still does not make sense to me. Why not take a copy of the procedures and run them on the test server. We use SQL Compare to do this except we do it the other way around. Develop on the dev server, test on UAT and deploy to Production, SQL Compare does the synching of the code in both steps. When we require another environment we take a backup of production onto yet another server. Then the only change is the server name and we don't use that in the qualification in the code. I admit this may become complicated if you are using distributed databases but we use Oracle for any really big data (multi TB)
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
but we use Oracle for any really big data (multi TB)
I'm jealous. I've only gotten to big gig levels.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
but we use Oracle for any really big data (multi TB)
I'm jealous. I've only gotten to big gig levels.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
We recently sized an Oracle system at 6TB, we can identify 3tb as the initial data coming from part of the trading system. Really big data is only useful if your structure is good and your data clean. Unfortunately our legacy systems were designed by incompetent, moronic, lazy, uneducated, idiots who only had a vague idea about the business and absolutely no idea about data structures.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
We recently sized an Oracle system at 6TB, we can identify 3tb as the initial data coming from part of the trading system. Really big data is only useful if your structure is good and your data clean. Unfortunately our legacy systems were designed by incompetent, moronic, lazy, uneducated, idiots who only had a vague idea about the business and absolutely no idea about data structures.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
our legacy systems were designed by incompetent, moronic, lazy, uneducated, idiots who only had a vague idea about the business and absolutely no idea about data structures
This is in fact the standard methodology for database development in 99% of companies worldwide.
-
Try CREATE SYNONYM. I think that's your best bet.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
Still does not make sense to me. Why not take a copy of the procedures and run them on the test server. We use SQL Compare to do this except we do it the other way around. Develop on the dev server, test on UAT and deploy to Production, SQL Compare does the synching of the code in both steps. When we require another environment we take a backup of production onto yet another server. Then the only change is the server name and we don't use that in the qualification in the code. I admit this may become complicated if you are using distributed databases but we use Oracle for any really big data (multi TB)
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Still does not make sense to me. Why not take a copy of the procedures and run them on the test server.
Because we're using continuous integration with tfs 2010, and want to launch the test sets while the build server is... building. If we have to copy our stored procedures to the test database then this will require a manual action each time a sp is updated, which I think, is a bad idea. Less humans around, less problems. Apart from checking bugs, we'd also like to guarantee that the deploy succeed regardless of the environment (dev, tst, post test, production). I know this seems a bit strange since we should only test on one of those, but we have numerous errors due to deployment issues (large amount of files to merge, a lot of manual actions) and we'd like to prevent that, or at least, be warned as soon as possible. Thanks
-
That's not bad, but still, requires me to update all my stored procedures... not cool! :sigh:
I'm not clear as to why. If the synonym is on the test server and points to the code on the production server then any change to the prod server should immediately be available to the test server. You run the code on the test server but it is the code from production. Or am I not seeing the problem?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
That's not bad, but still, requires me to update all my stored procedures... not cool! :sigh:
Nevermind. I'm trying it on my servers and can't seem to see anything but views and tables through my linked server. So maybe the other way around would work. I'm curious enough to continue researching this but let us know if you decide on a solution.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Still does not make sense to me. Why not take a copy of the procedures and run them on the test server.
Because we're using continuous integration with tfs 2010, and want to launch the test sets while the build server is... building. If we have to copy our stored procedures to the test database then this will require a manual action each time a sp is updated, which I think, is a bad idea. Less humans around, less problems. Apart from checking bugs, we'd also like to guarantee that the deploy succeed regardless of the environment (dev, tst, post test, production). I know this seems a bit strange since we should only test on one of those, but we have numerous errors due to deployment issues (large amount of files to merge, a lot of manual actions) and we'd like to prevent that, or at least, be warned as soon as possible. Thanks
_Zorro_ wrote:
continuous integration with tfs 2010
Never have been able to get the hang of automated testing/deployment I guess I'm old school, I want a human driving the deployment.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
_Zorro_ wrote:
continuous integration with tfs 2010
Never have been able to get the hang of automated testing/deployment I guess I'm old school, I want a human driving the deployment.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
It works fine for us, but we still have to do some stuff manually. We start having huge problems when humans begin to interact. That's actually why we wanted to validate each deployment step, because there's always something wrong. A file not merged correctly, something forgotten on the database, etc. and it implies a big loss of time to go and repair everything... each time... I suppose your humans are better than ours! :)
-
I'm not clear as to why. If the synonym is on the test server and points to the code on the production server then any change to the prod server should immediately be available to the test server. You run the code on the test server but it is the code from production. Or am I not seeing the problem?
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
Here's why:
CREATE SYNONYM [ schema_name_1. ] synonym_name FOR <object> <object> :: = { [ server_name.[ database_name ] . [ schema_name_2 ].| database_name . [ schema_name_2 ].| schema_name_2. ] object_name }USE tempdb; GO -- Create a synonym for the Product table in AdventureWorks2008R2. CREATE SYNONYM MyProduct FOR AdventureWorks2008R2.Production.Product; GO -- Query the Product table by using the synonym. USE tempdb; GO SELECT ProductID, Name FROM MyProduct WHERE ProductID < 5; GOMaybe I'm not seeing it, but how would you manage to use the same procedure and call different databases depending on who called the procedure? Let's say we have db1 and db2 and we're doing:SELECT A, B, C FROM dbo.TableWhat I need is to call the data from db1 if the application made the call, but go read the data on db2 if the call was made by the build server (the unit/integration tests). -
Nevermind. I'm trying it on my servers and can't seem to see anything but views and tables through my linked server. So maybe the other way around would work. I'm curious enough to continue researching this but let us know if you decide on a solution.
_____________________________ Give a man a mug, he drinks for a day. Teach a man to mug...
-
It works fine for us, but we still have to do some stuff manually. We start having huge problems when humans begin to interact. That's actually why we wanted to validate each deployment step, because there's always something wrong. A file not merged correctly, something forgotten on the database, etc. and it implies a big loss of time to go and repair everything... each time... I suppose your humans are better than ours! :)
_Zorro_ wrote:
I suppose your humans are better than ours
Ow, crap, I just had to pick myself up off the floor, possibly we have simpler deployments and I'll take it that we have a very good team of developers but the main systems deployment not a chance!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
_Zorro_ wrote:
I suppose your humans are better than ours
Ow, crap, I just had to pick myself up off the floor, possibly we have simpler deployments and I'll take it that we have a very good team of developers but the main systems deployment not a chance!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
possibly we have simpler deployments
Heh :) We have quite complex deployment issues right now indeed. We're maintaining a lot of branches for our customers. And it's not always as easy as it's supposed to be when the time has come to merge all the stuff together after a long period of time.