|
|
You're in the
sql server replication
group:Invalid SQL when @centralized_conflicts='false'
sql server replication:
several hundred subscribers.On one implementation we had a publisher replicating 2500 transactions per sec! Barnes and Noble runs an implementation with over 600 subscribers. Ticket Master uses transactional replication and is the largest implementation of transactional replication or was last time I spoke with some of the MS folks. In one of the channel 9 videos Bren Newman talks about repro'ing a topology with over 200. Its done, its stable, it offers high performance. I am curious though as to what method of transactional replication you are using? There is a problem with the GUI in transactional replication methods. IIRC it seems to indicate that you can log conflicts centrally or locally; whereas you can only log them centrally. Perhaps this is what you are encountering. What sp and version of SQL (7 or 2000) are you running? -- 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 [quoted text, click to view] "Chris Lacey" <chris.lacey@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:%23f7FFZ%23zFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > The further I delive into SQL Server replication, the more apparent it > becomes what a complete and utter lash-up the whole "technology" is. > > Has anyone ever encountered this particular problem? I have transactional > push replication in use, with a publication with > @centralized_conflicts='false' (i.e. requiring conflicts to be logged at > both publisher and subscriber). > > However, when a conflict occurs, SQL Agent falls over with an error > "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'null'". On further investigation, the > SQL generated by Agent for inserting the conflict into the subscriber's > conflict table is missing a comma in the VALUES list!! > > It seems incredible to me how something as important as data replication > can have been implemented using nothing more than a whole load of (pretty > poorly written) triggers and stored procedures that may or may not be > restored when you backup and restore a database, that cause replication to > fail when you restore a published database on the subscriber unless you > first run the pathetic sp_scriptpublicationcustomprocs to generate the > world's longest nvarchars containing dynamically generated SQL, and which > cause utterly meaningless errors about invalid SQL to be logged to the > event log. > > The rant is over now, but the serious question remains - is anyone out > there actually using SQL Server Replication within a serious Enterprise > class application or should I just accept that it really is the > half-hearted, conceived-at-the-last-minute, hack that it appears to be? > >
The further I delive into SQL Server replication, the more apparent it
becomes what a complete and utter lash-up the whole "technology" is. Has anyone ever encountered this particular problem? I have transactional push replication in use, with a publication with @centralized_conflicts='false' (i.e. requiring conflicts to be logged at both publisher and subscriber). However, when a conflict occurs, SQL Agent falls over with an error "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'null'". On further investigation, the SQL generated by Agent for inserting the conflict into the subscriber's conflict table is missing a comma in the VALUES list!! It seems incredible to me how something as important as data replication can have been implemented using nothing more than a whole load of (pretty poorly written) triggers and stored procedures that may or may not be restored when you backup and restore a database, that cause replication to fail when you restore a published database on the subscriber unless you first run the pathetic sp_scriptpublicationcustomprocs to generate the world's longest nvarchars containing dynamically generated SQL, and which cause utterly meaningless errors about invalid SQL to be logged to the event log. The rant is over now, but the serious question remains - is anyone out there actually using SQL Server Replication within a serious Enterprise class application or should I just accept that it really is the half-hearted, conceived-at-the-last-minute, hack that it appears to be?
Thanks for the info, Hilary. It's interesting to see how and where it is
being used for real. The number of transactions and subscribers doesn't surprise me - I've thrashed it myself with good throughput results. Neither am I surprised, I guess, that some companies have achieved results with it... but it doesn't change my opinion that it's quite clearly an afterthought that is implemented by clear "hacks", and which make it very messy to deal with. I guess that with enough time, patience and frustration, you could get TicketMaster running on a million networked Commodore 64s with BASIC as the programming language. But that wouldn't make it an elegant, sensible or extensible solution. I'm using transactional replication with a single queued updating subscriber. sp_addpublication allows you to specify @centralized_conflicts = false, which is supposed to ensure conflicts are logged at both publisher and subscriber (but which causes the error): http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/tsqlref/ts_sp_repl_4s32.asp . I'm using SQL Server 2000 SP4 (Microsoft SQL Server 2000 - 8.00.2039 (Intel X86)). Cheers, Chris. [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OOT0%232%23zFHA.3124@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > It works well for my clients. I have worked on replication projects with > several hundred subscribers.On one implementation we had a publisher > replicating 2500 transactions per sec! Barnes and Noble runs an > implementation with over 600 subscribers. Ticket Master uses transactional > replication and is the largest implementation of transactional replication > or was last time I spoke with some of the MS folks. In one of the channel > 9 videos Bren Newman talks about repro'ing a topology with over 200. Its > done, its stable, it offers high performance. > > I am curious though as to what method of transactional replication you are > using? There is a problem with the GUI in transactional replication > methods. IIRC it seems to indicate that you can log conflicts centrally or > locally; whereas you can only log them centrally. Perhaps this is what you > are encountering. What sp and version of SQL (7 or 2000) are you running? > > -- > 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 > > "Chris Lacey" <chris.lacey@bigfoot.com> wrote in message > news:%23f7FFZ%23zFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> The further I delive into SQL Server replication, the more apparent it >> becomes what a complete and utter lash-up the whole "technology" is. >> >> Has anyone ever encountered this particular problem? I have >> transactional push replication in use, with a publication with >> @centralized_conflicts='false' (i.e. requiring conflicts to be logged at >> both publisher and subscriber). >> >> However, when a conflict occurs, SQL Agent falls over with an error >> "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'null'". On further investigation, >> the SQL generated by Agent for inserting the conflict into the >> subscriber's conflict table is missing a comma in the VALUES list!! >> >> It seems incredible to me how something as important as data replication >> can have been implemented using nothing more than a whole load of (pretty >> poorly written) triggers and stored procedures that may or may not be >> restored when you backup and restore a database, that cause replication >> to fail when you restore a published database on the subscriber unless >> you first run the pathetic sp_scriptpublicationcustomprocs to generate >> the world's longest nvarchars containing dynamically generated SQL, and >> which cause utterly meaningless errors about invalid SQL to be logged to >> the event log. >> >> The rant is over now, but the serious question remains - is anyone out >> there actually using SQL Server Replication within a serious Enterprise >> class application or should I just accept that it really is the >> half-hearted, conceived-at-the-last-minute, hack that it appears to be? >> >> > >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
April 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |