|
|
You're in the
sql server replication
group:Converting to use replication
sql server replication:
replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact Edition. Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be sufficient
No, don't do this. Replication will add its own GUID key.
-- 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] "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A04F975C-AC8F-4FDB-A6D4-030C21392DFF@microsoft.com... >I have a DB running under SQL 2005. I would like to enable the database >for > replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact > Edition. > > Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be > sufficient > to enable the replication to work property.? They are currently integers.
I know that it does this, but my keys are autonumber fields, so wouldn't it
be better to convert them to GUIDs so that clashes don't occur later on. Because the fields are GUIDs SQL server shouldn't need to add GUIDs - or will this still occur even when GUIDs are already present? [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> No, don't do this. Replication will add its own GUID key. > > -- > 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 > > > > "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:A04F975C-AC8F-4FDB-A6D4-030C21392DFF@microsoft.com... > >I have a DB running under SQL 2005. I would like to enable the database > >for > > replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact > > Edition. > > > > Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be > > sufficient > > to enable the replication to work property.? They are currently integers. > >
Might still go with GUIDs - as the number of clients could vary so it will be
easier to manage. So will using GUIDs stop the extra GUID being added by SQL Server? [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
> Either consider automatic identity range management or use different seeds > on either side, i.e. even on one side, odd on another. > > -- > 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 > > > > "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:EEEEBE0A-22E9-432A-A2AF-98EF18806B7A@microsoft.com... > >I know that it does this, but my keys are autonumber fields, so wouldn't it > > be better to convert them to GUIDs so that clashes don't occur later on. > > > > Because the fields are GUIDs SQL server shouldn't need to add GUIDs - or > > will this still occur even when GUIDs are already present? > > > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > > > >> No, don't do this. Replication will add its own GUID key. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:A04F975C-AC8F-4FDB-A6D4-030C21392DFF@microsoft.com... > >> >I have a DB running under SQL 2005. I would like to enable the database > >> >for > >> > replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact > >> > Edition. > >> > > >> > Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be > >> > sufficient > >> > to enable the replication to work property.? They are currently > >> > integers. > >> > >> > >> > >
Either consider automatic identity range management or use different seeds
on either side, i.e. even on one side, odd on another. -- 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] "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:EEEEBE0A-22E9-432A-A2AF-98EF18806B7A@microsoft.com... >I know that it does this, but my keys are autonumber fields, so wouldn't it > be better to convert them to GUIDs so that clashes don't occur later on. > > Because the fields are GUIDs SQL server shouldn't need to add GUIDs - or > will this still occur even when GUIDs are already present? > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > >> No, don't do this. Replication will add its own GUID key. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:A04F975C-AC8F-4FDB-A6D4-030C21392DFF@microsoft.com... >> >I have a DB running under SQL 2005. I would like to enable the database >> >for >> > replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact >> > Edition. >> > >> > Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be >> > sufficient >> > to enable the replication to work property.? They are currently >> > integers. >> >> >>
Int's will be faster, but with more than 5 replicas and maybe even 10 to 50
managing autonumber fields would be a nightmare. [quoted text, click to view] "JE" wrote:
> You can add your own GUID field and call it what you want. Replication > needs a uniqueidentifier field with the ROWGUIDCOL property set. If it > finds an existing one it will use that instead of creating a new one. > Just remember to set the field default to (newid()). > > I agree with the advice not to set your primary key to a GUID. You will > run into performance problems when the table grows. Searching an integer > index is much faster than searching an GUID index. Auto identity > requires management, but it is definately the way to go. > > > > Nick Zdunic wrote: > > Might still go with GUIDs - as the number of clients could vary so it will be > > easier to manage. > > > > So will using GUIDs stop the extra GUID being added by SQL Server? > > > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > > > >> Either consider automatic identity range management or use different seeds > >> on either side, i.e. even on one side, odd on another. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >> news:EEEEBE0A-22E9-432A-A2AF-98EF18806B7A@microsoft.com... > >>> I know that it does this, but my keys are autonumber fields, so wouldn't it > >>> be better to convert them to GUIDs so that clashes don't occur later on. > >>> > >>> Because the fields are GUIDs SQL server shouldn't need to add GUIDs - or > >>> will this still occur even when GUIDs are already present? > >>> > >>> "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > >>> > >>>> No, don't do this. Replication will add its own GUID key. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:A04F975C-AC8F-4FDB-A6D4-030C21392DFF@microsoft.com... > >>>>> I have a DB running under SQL 2005. I would like to enable the database > >>>>> for > >>>>> replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact > >>>>> Edition. > >>>>> > >>>>> Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be > >>>>> sufficient > >>>>> to enable the replication to work property.? They are currently > >>>>> integers. > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >>
You can add your own GUID field and call it what you want. Replication
needs a uniqueidentifier field with the ROWGUIDCOL property set. If it finds an existing one it will use that instead of creating a new one. Just remember to set the field default to (newid()). I agree with the advice not to set your primary key to a GUID. You will run into performance problems when the table grows. Searching an integer index is much faster than searching an GUID index. Auto identity requires management, but it is definately the way to go. [quoted text, click to view] Nick Zdunic wrote:
> Might still go with GUIDs - as the number of clients could vary so it will be > easier to manage. > > So will using GUIDs stop the extra GUID being added by SQL Server? > > "Hilary Cotter" wrote: > >> Either consider automatic identity range management or use different seeds >> on either side, i.e. even on one side, odd on another. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:EEEEBE0A-22E9-432A-A2AF-98EF18806B7A@microsoft.com... >>> I know that it does this, but my keys are autonumber fields, so wouldn't it >>> be better to convert them to GUIDs so that clashes don't occur later on. >>> >>> Because the fields are GUIDs SQL server shouldn't need to add GUIDs - or >>> will this still occur even when GUIDs are already present? >>> >>> "Hilary Cotter" wrote: >>> >>>> No, don't do this. Replication will add its own GUID key. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Nick Zdunic" <NickZdunic@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >>>> news:A04F975C-AC8F-4FDB-A6D4-030C21392DFF@microsoft.com... >>>>> I have a DB running under SQL 2005. I would like to enable the database >>>>> for >>>>> replication to offline clients (SQLExpress) and SQL Server 2005 Compact >>>>> Edition. >>>>> >>>>> Will converting the primary keys of the database to use GUID's be >>>>> sufficient >>>>> to enable the replication to work property.? They are currently >>>>> integers. >>>> >>>> >>
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 |