Ignoring Table Column Order?

Pwales

Just downloaded the demo today, love the product. One question though How so I get the compare to ignore tables that are identical but the columns just appear in a different order :?:

I did search, couldn't find the answer. Thanks.

Chris Auckland

SQL Compare shouldn't identify a difference in column order as a semantic difference, unless the 'Force Column Order' option is checked.

However, the actual textual difference in the object will still be highlighted in the SQL Differences pane, but the difference will not be included in the synchronisation script.

Pwales

OK, it's the differences pane I'm looking at - is there any way of ignoring it so it doesn't show up in the differences pane?

I have one field that is in a different place in every table between two databases, so all tables are appearing as different, giving me a manual job to wade through and see which have other differences too.....

Thanks.

Chris Auckland

Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately there is no way to ignore the highlighted differences in the SQL Differences pane. This view will always highlight any textual differences between the objects. SQL Compare will try to match them up as best it can, but it does not attempt to reorganise the sql. This is done mainly for speed, but also because most people still want to see that there are actually differences present.

If there are any semantic differences identified, you will need to skip past the known column order differences and review the other dissimilarities.

Pwales

Thats a shame, I may have to look for a differetn tool, and other than that I like compare a lot.

Simon C

Just to be clear, by 'appearing as different' do you mean appearing in the 'objects that are different' group in the object grid, or the text differences in the SQL table definition in the panel at the bottom? If the column order is the only thing that is different, and 'force column order' is off, the object will appear in the identical list in the object grid and won't be synchronized at all.

Simon C

Pwales

Thanks.

They were showing up in the differences, and you know what they were subtlely different - on one side the column is declared NULL one side declared NOT NULL and I hadn't spotted it.

This is a TIMESTAMP field type. not sure Nulls mean much here.

No way of ignoring the NUll/NOT NULL on the columns in the compare?

Simon C

Currently, there isn't a way of doing so, but I've added this post to the request for this feature (SC-2413), which will give it more weight when we're looking at features for the next version of SQL Compare

Simon C

Pwales

I'll promise to buy a license if you do it...... :lol: