My invoice header table has a primary key of Location# and Invoice#. If a
subscriber does the following…
Creates invoice with the primary key of Location 4, Invoice 100.
Replicates the data.
Deletes the record and recreates it.
Replicates.
I will get an duplicate primary key entry in the conflict table.
Is this because the replication ROWGUID is NOT the primary key?
Thanks,
Steve
Steve,
the ROWGUID doesn't need to be the PK and almost always shouldn't be the PK.
When you delete the record on the subscriber are you adding the record back
on the publisher before synchronizing, or are you adding the record back on
the publisher? I'll try to duplicate this behaviour once you post back.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Paul,
Everything is happening on the subscriber. Is created there, replicates,
deleted and recreated on the subscriber, then replicates again.
Thanks,
Steve
"Paul Ibison" wrote:
> Steve,
> the ROWGUID doesn't need to be the PK and almost always shouldn't be the PK.
> When you delete the record on the subscriber are you adding the record back
> on the publisher before synchronizing, or are you adding the record back on
> the publisher? I'll try to duplicate this behaviour once you post back.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||Steve,
sorry but I still can't replicate this. Perhaps there is something else
happening? Is the record changed on the publisher at any time? Also, can you
post up the exact error message.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Paul,
Thanks for trying to replicate this and help us out. We are fairly
inexperienced in this area.
The merge agent history is showing conflicts on the last replication, but
the conflict resolver doesn't show any. Not sure how to find them. It says
28 resolved conflicts, how can I see what they were?
After looking into the situation more, there may be some other (user)
things going on which we will need to investigate further. The may be
updating and replicating from multiple P.C.'s in a manner we did not
anticipate.
After talking with them, if we can not determine what is going on, we may
have to ask again with more details.
Thanks again,
Steve
"Paul Ibison" wrote:
> Steve,
> sorry but I still can't replicate this. Perhaps there is something else
> happening? Is the record changed on the publisher at any time? Also, can you
> post up the exact error message.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
Showing posts with label asubscriber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label asubscriber. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Merge Replication Conflict Resolution Latency?
I've been having a hard time finding a definitive answer about merge
replication and any sort of latency on a transaction between a
subscriber and publisher. I apologize in advance for the lengthy post,
but it's difficult to really "cut to the meat" of this one
Here's my scenario: I'm developing a .NET CF application on a PocketPC
that stores data in a SQL CE database that merges with a SQL 2000
publisher when the PDA is docked. Generally speaking, what goes up is
properly reflected when it comes back down via a "is complete" row
filter that simply looks for a flag that is set to 1. For example:
-Publisher has 128 rows
-PDA has 128 rows, 28 rows have been "completed"
-Instantiate merge with publisher
-Result is that there are 128 rows on publisher, 28 are complete, row
filter disregards 28 complete records and sends down 100 records that
are still incomplete to PDA
This seems to work great. Now enter conflicts. I have the resolver set
such that the subscriber always wins. We've had several cases where the
server has been under moderate to heavy load, and there have been a lot
of conflicts. This was an actual occurrence:
-Publisher has 79 rows
-PDA has 79 rows, 69 rows have been "completed"
-Publisher had 79 rows *removed*
-Instantiate merge with publisher
-Result is that there are 69 conflicts at publisher, the subscriber wins
all, but there are still *79* rows on the PDA after merge finishes
-I wait a minute and try again, this time there are about 50 rows on the
subscriber
-I repeat this process several times over the course of 5 minutes until
finally, I am left with the correct number of records on the PDA (0)
My question is, is this normal behavior for the resolver? Are conflicts
generally allowed to be "handed off" and the merge allowed to complete
without reflecting their outcome? If so, is there any way to tune or
change this behavior?
This also has me concerned about a normal merge without any conflicts.
Would there ever be a case in which a merge would get out of sync in
this way? My understanding is that instantiating a merge will always
result in both the supplying subscriber and publisher ending up with the
same data at that moment. My merge agents are all using the default
profile.
Thanks a BUNCH for any help you can offer. I've had an impossible time
answering these questions and I'm a programmer before a DBA
-Mike
Mike wrote:
> -Publisher has 79 rows
> -PDA has 79 rows, 69 rows have been "completed"
> -Publisher had 79 rows *removed*
> -Instantiate merge with publisher
> -Result is that there are 69 conflicts at publisher, the subscriber wins
> all, but there are still *79* rows on the PDA after merge finishes
> -I wait a minute and try again, this time there are about 50 rows on the
> subscriber
> -I repeat this process several times over the course of 5 minutes until
> finally, I am left with the correct number of records on the PDA (0)
I apologize, I had my scenarios crossed. This should have read:
-Publisher has 79 rows
-PDA has 79 rows, 69 rows have been "completed"
-Publisher had all 79 rows *modified*
-Instantiate merge with publisher
-Result is that there are 69 conflicts at publisher, the subscriber wins
all and they are noted as resolved in the agent history, but there are
still *79* rows on the PDA after merge finishes
-I wait a minute and try again, this time there are about 50 rows on the
subscriber
-I repeat this process several times over the course of 5 minutes, each
time the number of rows at the subscriber decreases, until finally, I am
left with the correct number of records on the PDA (10)
Thanks
-Mike
replication and any sort of latency on a transaction between a
subscriber and publisher. I apologize in advance for the lengthy post,
but it's difficult to really "cut to the meat" of this one
Here's my scenario: I'm developing a .NET CF application on a PocketPC
that stores data in a SQL CE database that merges with a SQL 2000
publisher when the PDA is docked. Generally speaking, what goes up is
properly reflected when it comes back down via a "is complete" row
filter that simply looks for a flag that is set to 1. For example:
-Publisher has 128 rows
-PDA has 128 rows, 28 rows have been "completed"
-Instantiate merge with publisher
-Result is that there are 128 rows on publisher, 28 are complete, row
filter disregards 28 complete records and sends down 100 records that
are still incomplete to PDA
This seems to work great. Now enter conflicts. I have the resolver set
such that the subscriber always wins. We've had several cases where the
server has been under moderate to heavy load, and there have been a lot
of conflicts. This was an actual occurrence:
-Publisher has 79 rows
-PDA has 79 rows, 69 rows have been "completed"
-Publisher had 79 rows *removed*
-Instantiate merge with publisher
-Result is that there are 69 conflicts at publisher, the subscriber wins
all, but there are still *79* rows on the PDA after merge finishes
-I wait a minute and try again, this time there are about 50 rows on the
subscriber
-I repeat this process several times over the course of 5 minutes until
finally, I am left with the correct number of records on the PDA (0)
My question is, is this normal behavior for the resolver? Are conflicts
generally allowed to be "handed off" and the merge allowed to complete
without reflecting their outcome? If so, is there any way to tune or
change this behavior?
This also has me concerned about a normal merge without any conflicts.
Would there ever be a case in which a merge would get out of sync in
this way? My understanding is that instantiating a merge will always
result in both the supplying subscriber and publisher ending up with the
same data at that moment. My merge agents are all using the default
profile.
Thanks a BUNCH for any help you can offer. I've had an impossible time
answering these questions and I'm a programmer before a DBA
-Mike
Mike wrote:
> -Publisher has 79 rows
> -PDA has 79 rows, 69 rows have been "completed"
> -Publisher had 79 rows *removed*
> -Instantiate merge with publisher
> -Result is that there are 69 conflicts at publisher, the subscriber wins
> all, but there are still *79* rows on the PDA after merge finishes
> -I wait a minute and try again, this time there are about 50 rows on the
> subscriber
> -I repeat this process several times over the course of 5 minutes until
> finally, I am left with the correct number of records on the PDA (0)
I apologize, I had my scenarios crossed. This should have read:
-Publisher has 79 rows
-PDA has 79 rows, 69 rows have been "completed"
-Publisher had all 79 rows *modified*
-Instantiate merge with publisher
-Result is that there are 69 conflicts at publisher, the subscriber wins
all and they are noted as resolved in the agent history, but there are
still *79* rows on the PDA after merge finishes
-I wait a minute and try again, this time there are about 50 rows on the
subscriber
-I repeat this process several times over the course of 5 minutes, each
time the number of rows at the subscriber decreases, until finally, I am
left with the correct number of records on the PDA (10)
Thanks
-Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)