options not taken into account + ghosts
Brian Donahue
Posts: 6,590 Bronze 1
Hello Hans,
I see you've come across the rather deceptively named 'ignore
object order' option of SQL Compare. I made the same assumption when I first
started using the software. I thought I needed to check this because the
columns in the SQL Script window were showing differences due to the column
order. Unfortunately this option works in the comparison algorithm
perfectly, but does not have any effect in the SQL Script window that you
get when you double-click a database object.
The same is true for the rest of the comparison options that you
mention. While the comparisons are done correctly internally, that sometimes
is not reflected in the SQL Script window. Hopefully this will be remedied
in a future version.
Please email me at support@red-gate.com if you need any more help
at all.
Regards,
Brian Donahue
Technical Support Engineer
Red Gate Software Ltd.
( +44 870 1600 037
* mailto:brian.donahue@red-gate.com
"hve" <eylenh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oluD98N3CHA.1444@server53...
> Hi,
>
> I compared two databases on two different SQL2000 servers (SQL Compare
> 2.03) and found out that a number of options are not taken into account:
>
> ignore object order
> ignore names of constraints, triggers, etc.
> ignore comments
> ignore spaces
> ignore CR/LF
>
> example (the last lines of a stored procedure):
>
> SERVER1 (first line is blank)
>
> GO (GREEN)
> SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER OFF (GREEN)
> GO (RED)
> SET ANSI_NULLS ON
> GO
>
> SERVER2
> GO (GREEN)
> SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER OFF (GREEN)
> GO (GREEN)
>
> SET ANSI_NULLS ON
> GO
>
>
>
> I also discovered that sometimes extra objects are automatically
> selected when you reregister a server. I'm pretty sure I didn't click on
> them by mistake because all our objects start with XYZ_ (XYZ being the
> project abbreviation). I selected a number of objects with XYZ_ and the
> next run, there was one object ABC_ which was included. The more you
> reregister a server, the more objects are added.
>
> Can you please check?
>
> thanks
>
> Hans
>
I see you've come across the rather deceptively named 'ignore
object order' option of SQL Compare. I made the same assumption when I first
started using the software. I thought I needed to check this because the
columns in the SQL Script window were showing differences due to the column
order. Unfortunately this option works in the comparison algorithm
perfectly, but does not have any effect in the SQL Script window that you
get when you double-click a database object.
The same is true for the rest of the comparison options that you
mention. While the comparisons are done correctly internally, that sometimes
is not reflected in the SQL Script window. Hopefully this will be remedied
in a future version.
Please email me at support@red-gate.com if you need any more help
at all.
Regards,
Brian Donahue
Technical Support Engineer
Red Gate Software Ltd.
( +44 870 1600 037
* mailto:brian.donahue@red-gate.com
"hve" <eylenh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oluD98N3CHA.1444@server53...
> Hi,
>
> I compared two databases on two different SQL2000 servers (SQL Compare
> 2.03) and found out that a number of options are not taken into account:
>
> ignore object order
> ignore names of constraints, triggers, etc.
> ignore comments
> ignore spaces
> ignore CR/LF
>
> example (the last lines of a stored procedure):
>
> SERVER1 (first line is blank)
>
> GO (GREEN)
> SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER OFF (GREEN)
> GO (RED)
> SET ANSI_NULLS ON
> GO
>
> SERVER2
> GO (GREEN)
> SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER OFF (GREEN)
> GO (GREEN)
>
> SET ANSI_NULLS ON
> GO
>
>
>
> I also discovered that sometimes extra objects are automatically
> selected when you reregister a server. I'm pretty sure I didn't click on
> them by mistake because all our objects start with XYZ_ (XYZ being the
> project abbreviation). I selected a number of objects with XYZ_ and the
> next run, there was one object ABC_ which was included. The more you
> reregister a server, the more objects are added.
>
> Can you please check?
>
> thanks
>
> Hans
>
This discussion has been closed.
