|
|
You're in the
sql server replication
group:a bit confused with merge replication?
sql server replication:
hi all;
when i first read about merge replication , i used to think that: when synchronized,subscriber receives changes at publisher and publisher receives changes at subscriber and therefore both would always have same data. but when i configure a merge replication with pull subscription (in fact, anonymous ) and do some tests , i see that changes in the subscriber are propogated to publisher and deleted from subscriber. subscriber always has the same the data when the initial snapshot was applied. Bol says that i would mark subscription for reinitialization to get new schema and data at the next synchronization. But reinitialization is done before synchronization therefore changes at the subscriber will be overwritten. and i am using dynamic snapshot also. What i want to do is to make subscriber and publisher have same data after a synchronization. Do i have to mark subscription for reinitialization after every synchronization ? but then how can i preserve last changes at the subscriber? and dynamic snapshot job is now running on schedule. is there way to make this job run after every synchronization so that latest data and schema is always available. thanks in advance....
Basically what happens is changes at the subscriber are merge with changes
at the publisher. If the changes are to the same row, it is termed a conflict, and by default the publisher's changes will replace the changes on the subscriber. If there are no conflicts, changes which occur on the publisher are applied on the subscriber, and vice versa. Use the conflict viewer to view any conflicts. Only reinitialize if you want to propagate changes. You do not have to reinitialize your subscription to get your publisher and subscriber to have the same data. -- 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] "uykusuz" <ad> wrote in message news:O3K86PBWFHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > hi all; > when i first read about merge replication , i used to think that: > when synchronized,subscriber receives changes at publisher and publisher > receives changes at subscriber and therefore both would always have same > data. > > but when i configure a merge replication with pull subscription (in fact, > anonymous ) and do some tests , i see that changes in the subscriber are > propogated to publisher and deleted from subscriber. subscriber always has > the same the data when the initial snapshot was applied. > > > Bol says that i would mark subscription for reinitialization to get new > schema and data at the next synchronization. But reinitialization is done > before synchronization therefore changes at the subscriber will be > overwritten. > > and i am using dynamic snapshot also. > > What i want to do is to make subscriber and publisher have same data after > a synchronization. > > Do i have to mark subscription for reinitialization after every > synchronization ? but then how can i preserve last changes at the > subscriber? > > and dynamic snapshot job is now running on schedule. > is there way to make this job run after every synchronization so that > latest data and schema is always available. > > thanks in advance.... > > >
Hilary, thanks for your answer,
but in my case, changes at the publisher are not applied to subscriber. i insert one record to the 'TABLE_1 at the publisher and one at the subscriber, i get the following merge_status messages: (i use sqlMerge object at the subscriber.) -Uploading data changes to the Publisher -Processing article 'TABLE_1' -Uploaded 1 data changes (1 inserts, 0 updates, 0 deletes, 0 conflicts) -Downloading data changes to the Subscriber -Processing article 'TABLE_1' -Downloaded 1 data changes (0 inserts, 0 updates, 1 deletes, 0 conflicts) -Merged 2 data changes (1 inserts, 0 updates, 1 deletes, 0 resolved conflicts). Changes at the Subscriber are deleted automatically , therefore subscriber always has the data when the last snapshot was applied.. [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OLlM4hCWFHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Basically what happens is changes at the subscriber are merge with changes > at the publisher. If the changes are to the same row, it is termed a > conflict, and by default the publisher's changes will replace the changes on > the subscriber. If there are no conflicts, changes which occur on the > publisher are applied on the subscriber, and vice versa. > > Use the conflict viewer to view any conflicts. > > Only reinitialize if you want to propagate changes. You do not have to > reinitialize your subscription to get your publisher and subscriber to have > the same data. > > -- > 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 > > "uykusuz" <ad> wrote in message > news:O3K86PBWFHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > hi all; > > when i first read about merge replication , i used to think that: > > when synchronized,subscriber receives changes at publisher and publisher > > receives changes at subscriber and therefore both would always have same > > data. > > > > but when i configure a merge replication with pull subscription (in fact, > > anonymous ) and do some tests , i see that changes in the subscriber are > > propogated to publisher and deleted from subscriber. subscriber always has > > the same the data when the initial snapshot was applied. > > > > > > Bol says that i would mark subscription for reinitialization to get new > > schema and data at the next synchronization. But reinitialization is > done > > before synchronization therefore changes at the subscriber will be > > overwritten. > > > > and i am using dynamic snapshot also. > > > > What i want to do is to make subscriber and publisher have same data > after > > a synchronization. > > > > Do i have to mark subscription for reinitialization after every > > synchronization ? but then how can i preserve last changes at the > > subscriber? > > > > and dynamic snapshot job is now running on schedule. > > is there way to make this job run after every synchronization so that > > latest data and schema is always available. > > > > thanks in advance.... > > > > > > > >
I found this on Paul Ibison's site:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- How to....... avoid subscriber deletes? - when I use filtered articles and add a record on a subscriber, it is later deleted? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Filtering works by creating a view on the publisher. Initialisation doesn't send this view to the subscriber, and it is only checked on the publisher. So, you can add a record on the subscriber and on synchronisation this record will be sent as an insert to the publisher. here, the filter is checked, and a delete is downloaded to the subscriber. If this is not the way you want it to work you have 2 choices: (a) modify the insert trigger on the subscriber to ensure it doesn't write the changed record to MSmerge_contents. (b) use partitioned views to partition your data based on the original merge replication filter and only replicate one table. if we modify the insert trigger on the subscriber to ensure it doesn't write the changed record to MSmerge_contents , then this record would not be send to Publisher , am i wrong or miss something? i did not understand b. can someone explain it? and isn't there a formal way to prevent subscriber deletes? thnx so much... [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OLlM4hCWFHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Basically what happens is changes at the subscriber are merge with changes > at the publisher. If the changes are to the same row, it is termed a > conflict, and by default the publisher's changes will replace the changes on > the subscriber. If there are no conflicts, changes which occur on the > publisher are applied on the subscriber, and vice versa. > > Use the conflict viewer to view any conflicts. > > Only reinitialize if you want to propagate changes. You do not have to > reinitialize your subscription to get your publisher and subscriber to have > the same data. > > -- > 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 > > "uykusuz" <ad> wrote in message > news:O3K86PBWFHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > > hi all; > > when i first read about merge replication , i used to think that: > > when synchronized,subscriber receives changes at publisher and publisher > > receives changes at subscriber and therefore both would always have same > > data. > > > > but when i configure a merge replication with pull subscription (in fact, > > anonymous ) and do some tests , i see that changes in the subscriber are > > propogated to publisher and deleted from subscriber. subscriber always has > > the same the data when the initial snapshot was applied. > > > > > > Bol says that i would mark subscription for reinitialization to get new > > schema and data at the next synchronization. But reinitialization is > done > > before synchronization therefore changes at the subscriber will be > > overwritten. > > > > and i am using dynamic snapshot also. > > > > What i want to do is to make subscriber and publisher have same data > after > > a synchronization. > > > > Do i have to mark subscription for reinitialization after every > > synchronization ? but then how can i preserve last changes at the > > subscriber? > > > > and dynamic snapshot job is now running on schedule. > > is there way to make this job run after every synchronization so that > > latest data and schema is always available. > > > > thanks in advance.... > > > > > > > >
Hi,
the method off my site is an unsupported hack to conveniently avoid the proper working of merge filters. If you want a more 'standard' way of doing things, you could have a view with an 'instead of' trigger. Inserts that violate the filter go to a separate table with an identical structure. The view amalgamates the records. This way, synchronization proceeds as per usual. Rgds, Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
Thnks Paul,
i have to do some research on these issues , i would probably be here soon then. :) bye... [quoted text, click to view] "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:Oji8AKKWFHA.2424@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Hi, > the method off my site is an unsupported hack to conveniently avoid the > proper working of merge filters. If you want a more 'standard' way of doing > things, you could have a view with an 'instead of' trigger. Inserts that > violate the filter go to a separate table with an identical structure. The > view amalgamates the records. This way, synchronization proceeds as per > usual. > Rgds, > Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com > (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) > >
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 |