Options
What is the "Improved SQL 2000" Support?
Brian Donahue
Posts: 6,590 Bronze 1
Hi Dennis,
Some of this information was in a response to an earlier post by Chris
Tybur a few weeks ago. If you read between the lines, you can see how
support for SQL 2000-specific features has been enhanced:
1. Issues relating to User-Defined Functions, exclusive to SQL 2000:
"Fixed problem with script order of UDF dependant tables. This was because
UDF dependencies were being incorrectly described as table type dependencies
and not UDF type."
2. Bug fix for Cryptographic Context Error: I believe that this problem
crept in due to a change in security capabilities in SQL 2000.
There are probably more, but I don't have any information on the 1.51->1.61
upgrade.
I wouldn't upgrade for performance reasons, if that's your primary logic
for an upgrade. SQL Compare slowed down quite a bit between 1.61 and 2.01
due to improvements in dependency checking. Between 2.01 and 2.03, it was
optimized a bit. The next version, due out in a few weeks, will be quite a
bit faster than 1.61 judging from the early Alphas I've seen.
So if you're happy with 1.51, I would wait for the next version. If you
really need the enhancements in 2.03, by all means, buy it and help pay my
salary! You may be eligible for an upgrade discount if the upgrade comes out
soon after your purchase (see upgrade policy
http://www.red-gate.com/upgrading.htm), and if you order 1 year of support,
the upgrade is absolutely free.
-Brian Donahue
"dennis" <dennis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2GAxwFj#CHA.1156@server53...
> In the upgrade information it mentions "Improved SQL 2000 Support", what
in
> fact does this mean? We have 1.51 already and are looking for what is the
> compelling reason to upgrade to 2.03. The only compelling reason so far I
> saw mentioned in the newsgroup was speed.
> dennis
>
>
Some of this information was in a response to an earlier post by Chris
Tybur a few weeks ago. If you read between the lines, you can see how
support for SQL 2000-specific features has been enhanced:
1. Issues relating to User-Defined Functions, exclusive to SQL 2000:
"Fixed problem with script order of UDF dependant tables. This was because
UDF dependencies were being incorrectly described as table type dependencies
and not UDF type."
2. Bug fix for Cryptographic Context Error: I believe that this problem
crept in due to a change in security capabilities in SQL 2000.
There are probably more, but I don't have any information on the 1.51->1.61
upgrade.
I wouldn't upgrade for performance reasons, if that's your primary logic
for an upgrade. SQL Compare slowed down quite a bit between 1.61 and 2.01
due to improvements in dependency checking. Between 2.01 and 2.03, it was
optimized a bit. The next version, due out in a few weeks, will be quite a
bit faster than 1.61 judging from the early Alphas I've seen.
So if you're happy with 1.51, I would wait for the next version. If you
really need the enhancements in 2.03, by all means, buy it and help pay my
salary! You may be eligible for an upgrade discount if the upgrade comes out
soon after your purchase (see upgrade policy
http://www.red-gate.com/upgrading.htm), and if you order 1 year of support,
the upgrade is absolutely free.
-Brian Donahue
"dennis" <dennis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2GAxwFj#CHA.1156@server53...
> In the upgrade information it mentions "Improved SQL 2000 Support", what
in
> fact does this mean? We have 1.51 already and are looking for what is the
> compelling reason to upgrade to 2.03. The only compelling reason so far I
> saw mentioned in the newsgroup was speed.
> dennis
>
>
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Referential integrity (ON DELETE/UPDATE CASCADE) appeared in version
2.01 of SQL Compare.
-Brian
"dennis" <dennis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zoLJrbEBDHA.1992@server53...
> Specifically, can you tell me which version has support for Cascade Delete
> settings, the version we have does not appear to capture those.
> dennis
>
> "Brian Donahue (Red Gate)" <brian.donahue@red-gate.com> wrote in message
> news:LfpXHtnADHA.1172@server53...
> > Hi Dennis,
> >
> > Some of this information was in a response to an earlier post by
Chris
> > Tybur a few weeks ago. If you read between the lines, you can see how
> > support for SQL 2000-specific features has been enhanced:
> >
> > 1. Issues relating to User-Defined Functions, exclusive to SQL 2000:
> >
> > "Fixed problem with script order of UDF dependant tables. This was
because
> > UDF dependencies were being incorrectly described as table type
> dependencies
> > and not UDF type."
> >
> > 2. Bug fix for Cryptographic Context Error: I believe that this problem
> > crept in due to a change in security capabilities in SQL 2000.
> >
> > There are probably more, but I don't have any information on the
> 1.51->1.61
> > upgrade.
> >
> > I wouldn't upgrade for performance reasons, if that's your primary
> logic
> > for an upgrade. SQL Compare slowed down quite a bit between 1.61 and
2.01
> > due to improvements in dependency checking. Between 2.01 and 2.03, it
was
> > optimized a bit. The next version, due out in a few weeks, will be quite
a
> > bit faster than 1.61 judging from the early Alphas I've seen.
> >
> > So if you're happy with 1.51, I would wait for the next version. If
> you
> > really need the enhancements in 2.03, by all means, buy it and help pay
my
> > salary! You may be eligible for an upgrade discount if the upgrade comes
> out
> > soon after your purchase (see upgrade policy
> > http://www.red-gate.com/upgrading.htm), and if you order 1 year of
> support,
> > the upgrade is absolutely free.
> >
> > -Brian Donahue
> >
> >
> > "dennis" <dennis@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:2GAxwFj#CHA.1156@server53...
> > > In the upgrade information it mentions "Improved SQL 2000 Support",
what
> > in
> > > fact does this mean? We have 1.51 already and are looking for what is
t
> he
> > > compelling reason to upgrade to 2.03. The only compelling reason so
far
> I
> > > saw mentioned in the newsgroup was speed.
> > > dennis
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>