Tables that are the same show up as different in SQL Comp

jdbrucejdbruce Posts: 4
edited August 5, 2005 1:23PM in SQL Compare Previous Versions
I'm running a compare from two DBs on different servers. Many (if not all) of the tables after the compare are indicated as different by SQL Comp. When I view the table (in SQL Comp) the text is EXACTLY the same for both tables.

One server is actually MSDE and the other is SQL 2000.

I've tried changing a few options w/ no luck.

Any idea why?

Thanks,
JD

Comments

  • Brian DonahueBrian Donahue Posts: 6,590 New member
    Is it that the result grid shows differneces (the <=> arrows), or are the differences in the SQL view at the bottom of the screen?

    The side-by-side windows have some issues with reordered columns.
  • The top window (the list of objects) indicates the tables are different with the red and blue arrows. The side-by-side windows at the bottom are identical. Each and every line on the bottom two windows have =. Nothing highlighted.

    About an hour ago, I noticed the same thing on a few stored procs, too.

    JD
  • Brian DonahueBrian Donahue Posts: 6,590 New member
    Hi JD,

    It sounds most likely that you want to use the 'ignore white space' option if you get differences in stored procedures.
  • Well, yeah-- Ignore Whitespace has always been checked. I even tried turning it off. I was mistaken by the stored proceedures. It's only tables that are doing it. Not all of them, just a subset of them.

    JD
  • Brian DonahueBrian Donahue Posts: 6,590 New member
    Hello JD,

    Something else to be aware of -- SQL Compare's ignore white space option still doesn't ignore the commas in the table definition. This should hopefully be enhanced in the next major version, but for now, there is no way to ignore commas that are part of a column definition. For instance:

    CREATE TABLE MyTable (
    Identifier INT NULL,
    Data varchar(255)
    )

    is not the same as

    CREATE TABLE MyTable (
    Identifier INT NULL
    Data varchar(255)
    )
This discussion has been closed.