merge replication without rowguid

hi,
I have a database that has Primary Key constraints on every table. Yet
when I run the replication wizard and try to configure merge
replication the wizard notifies me that it will create a rowguid on
the tables even though they already have a primary key.
anybody know how to avoid the rowguid column from being created?
regards,
Doron
what is the big deal with having rowguid column?
I am running the replication for 3 years with that column without any
prolem!
"DoronA" <doronal@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OMPe$RgwEHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> hi,
> I have a database that has Primary Key constraints on every table. Yet
> when I run the replication wizard and try to configure merge
> replication the wizard notifies me that it will create a rowguid on
> the tables even though they already have a primary key.
> anybody know how to avoid the rowguid column from being created?
> regards,
> Doron
>
|||If your primary key is a unqueidentifier, then you can mark it as the
RowGuid column using ALTER TABLE, e.g.
ALTER TABLE dbo.MyTable
ALTER COLUMN MyPK ADD ROWGUIDCOL
Otherwise, you have to have a separate RowGuid column, as it's how
replication tracks the global identity of rows.
Paul
"DoronA" <doronal@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:OMPe$RgwEHA.824@.TK2MSFTNGP11t .phx.gbl...
> hi,
> I have a database that has Primary Key constraints on every table. Yet
> when I run the replication wizard and try to configure merge
> replication the wizard notifies me that it will create a rowguid on
> the tables even though they already have a primary key.
> anybody know how to avoid the rowguid column from being created?
> regards,
> Doron
>

merge replication without rowguid

hi,
I have a database that has Primary Key constraints on every table. Yet
when I run the replication wizard and try to configure merge
replication the wizard notifies me that it will create a rowguid on
the tables even though they already have a primary key.
anybody know how to avoid the rowguid column from being created?

regards,
Dorondoron_almog@.msn.com (Doron) wrote in message news:<995517bc.0411031605.30cf6318@.posting.google.com>...
> hi,
> I have a database that has Primary Key constraints on every table. Yet
> when I run the replication wizard and try to configure merge
> replication the wizard notifies me that it will create a rowguid on
> the tables even though they already have a primary key.
> anybody know how to avoid the rowguid column from being created?
> regards,
> Doron

Unless all of the replicas are read-only, how would you prevent the
same PK being allocated to two different rows in two different
replicas?

The solution you are being offered is to have rowguid be the primary
key - what's your proposed solution to the problem?

Merge Replication with Interactive Resolver

1) Can you use the Default Interactive Resolver with SQL Express and Merge
Replication ?
2) Has anyone successfully done this?
My setup is Windows XP Laptop with SQL Express, Windows Server 2003 with SQL
Server 2005 Standard. I have setup Merge Replication between the two
computers where conflict resolution is automatic.
However, whenever I try to implement Interactive Resolution I get the
following message on the laptop:
"Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (SystemPortfolioystem
Portfolio(PublicHealth1\SQLEXPRESS)): The merge process failed to get
correct information about the Interactive Resolver component from the
registry. Verify that the registry exists and that the path is correct."
Thanks in Advance!
Jeremy
Worked in SQL 2000, broken in SQL 2005.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FCE3D3A5-C3F9-4954-9870-546330D29F43@.microsoft.com...
> 1) Can you use the Default Interactive Resolver with SQL Express and Merge
> Replication ?
> 2) Has anyone successfully done this?
> My setup is Windows XP Laptop with SQL Express, Windows Server 2003 with
> SQL
> Server 2005 Standard. I have setup Merge Replication between the two
> computers where conflict resolution is automatic.
> However, whenever I try to implement Interactive Resolution I get the
> following message on the laptop:
> "Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (SystemPortfolioystem
> Portfolio(PublicHealth1\SQLEXPRESS)): The merge process failed to get
> correct information about the Interactive Resolver component from the
> registry. Verify that the registry exists and that the path is correct."
> Thanks in Advance!
> Jeremy
>
|||Do you know if there are plans to fix it in a future version/service pack?
Thanks,
Jeremy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Worked in SQL 2000, broken in SQL 2005.
> --
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FCE3D3A5-C3F9-4954-9870-546330D29F43@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I don't have a clue. I'll ping Microsoft on it. You might want to try to do
the same.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0615B2B3-12B9-421B-A747-029180B2D42D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Do you know if there are plans to fix it in a future version/service pack?
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
|||Also, are they any workarounds for SQL 2005.
Thanks again,
Jeremy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> Worked in SQL 2000, broken in SQL 2005.
> --
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FCE3D3A5-C3F9-4954-9870-546330D29F43@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I'll put a bug in their ear. Also, I see you have written an entire book on
SQL Server Replication so while I have an expert to ask, are you using any
workarounds for interactive conflict resolution between SQL Express and SQL
Server 2005?
It seems like a huge feature to be missing.
Thanks for your feedback!!!
Jeremy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> I don't have a clue. I'll ping Microsoft on it. You might want to try to do
> the same.
> --
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0615B2B3-12B9-421B-A747-029180B2D42D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||I'm carrying on an email conversation with the replication PM right now.
I'll keep you posted.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:554B8D85-3B44-4B4D-AB5D-CD25764741CC@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'll put a bug in their ear. Also, I see you have written an entire book
> on
> SQL Server Replication so while I have an expert to ask, are you using any
> workarounds for interactive conflict resolution between SQL Express and
> SQL
> Server 2005?
> It seems like a huge feature to be missing.
> Thanks for your feedback!!!
> Jeremy
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
|||Thanks, that's fantastic as I don't have very much influence with Microsoft
but will notify them anyway I can that this feature no longer works in SQL
2005.
Thanks again,
Jeremy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> I'm carrying on an email conversation with the replication PM right now.
> I'll keep you posted.
> --
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:554B8D85-3B44-4B4D-AB5D-CD25764741CC@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hilary,
I have opened a case with the Microsoft SQL Integration Support department.
I forwarded detailed instructions to duplicate the error. I'll let you know
what I hear as well.
Thanks,
Jeremy
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> I'm carrying on an email conversation with the replication PM right now.
> I'll keep you posted.
> --
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:554B8D85-3B44-4B4D-AB5D-CD25764741CC@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||The team on my end is look at it as well.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Jeremy Scrime" <JeremyScrime@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BBC0DA3D-6F50-4DD0-91A4-7F70EF4D8EE9@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hilary,
> I have opened a case with the Microsoft SQL Integration Support
> department.
> I forwarded detailed instructions to duplicate the error. I'll let you
> know
> what I hear as well.
> Thanks,
> Jeremy
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:

Merge Replication with Indexed Tables

I have several systems located aroung the globe that currently have Merge
Replication running just fine. I've recently found that if I add an index to
one of the tables, my application will perform much better.
How does adding indices on tables effect the Merge Replication? Is this
considered a Schema change?
If I Index the NY DB, how will it impact the databases that do not have the
indices?
Thaks,
Randy
randy.crockett@.ectinfo.com
In general it will improve them, especially if the filters are on columns
which are part of the join condition. Too many indexes will degrade overall
insert, update and delete performance, so use indexes sparingly.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BFD6A891-F662-4405-8749-A38ADBC3C0B3@.microsoft.com...
> I have several systems located aroung the globe that currently have Merge
> Replication running just fine. I've recently found that if I add an index
to
> one of the tables, my application will perform much better.
> How does adding indices on tables effect the Merge Replication? Is this
> considered a Schema change?
> If I Index the NY DB, how will it impact the databases that do not have
the
> indices?
> Thaks,
> Randy
> randy.crockett@.ectinfo.com
|||If I add Indexes to a replicated database, do I have to create a new snapshot
and restart the replication?
Is this considered a schema change?
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> In general it will improve them, especially if the filters are on columns
> which are part of the join condition. Too many indexes will degrade overall
> insert, update and delete performance, so use indexes sparingly.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Randy" <Randy@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BFD6A891-F662-4405-8749-A38ADBC3C0B3@.microsoft.com...
> to
> the
>
>

Merge Replication with filters throwing error

I'm synchronizing SQL Mobile 2005 with SQL Server 2005 using Merge
Replication. I've filtered a table like this:
WHERE HOST_NAME() = convert(nvarchar(100), patientId)
"patientId" is uniqueidentifier type column, the primary key of
"Patient" table.
The error when synchronizing is the following:
"The row operation cannot be reapplied due to an integrity violation.
Check the Publication filter. [ Table = Appointment,Operation =
Insert/Update,RowGuid = {F64E1023-01AD-DA11-8ED9-0004E2B45615} ]}"
Table Patient is joined with table Appointment but I don't understand
the error.
I think this sentence worked in SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server E 2.0.
I would appreciate any help on this.
Regards.
I've also tried same filter for Appointment database, and here I don't
receive any error, but the filtering is not correctly done.
Can anybody tell me if the following filtering is correct: WHERE
HOST_NAME() = convert(nvarchar(100), patientId)
Be sure this filtering has correctly worked in the past.
Any ideas please?
Regards.

merge replication where deletes are required

Hello all,
I am desperatly need help, our setup is a SQL 2005 server, with merge
replication.
Filtered rows and 120 pocket pcs (subscribers).
We need to delete 100000 rows each night, plus minor inserts, and every time
each pocketpc gets all deletes which kills me and them. I have searched the
net how to achive this without any luck.
I have tried to "reinitilize all" with upload changes, + create new snapshot
+ delete the subscriber and nothing help, all deletes get sent to the
subscriber.
I cannot believe that there are no solution for this common problem, and why
does all the deletes get out to all the subscribers when we have filtered
rows and it works fine with inserts or update?
Please help, anything is better than what we have, and the nightly deletes
are required.
Perhaps you could temporarily turn off the delete tracking:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms146947.aspx?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .

Merge Replication w/ Web Synchronization Across Non-Trusted Domain

I have a requirement to replicate a portion of a 2005 database using merge
replication where the database server is in a workgroup at location A and the
web server is in an AD domain at location B. Both locations are connected
via a VPN.
Becuase of the disparate domains we are unable to push snapshots to a share
on the Web Server w/o using FTP. After specifying the FTP information in the
FTP Snapshot and Internet dialog, the following message is returned when
attempting to start the Snapshot Agent:
Message: The replication agent failed to create the directory
'\\172.27.1.187\unc\ftp\DAYMONJPSV02$TEST_CORE_APP RISCORE1\20071218021362\'.
Stack: at
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Utilities.CreateDi rectoryWithExtendedErrorInformation(String directory)
at
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Snapshot.SnapshotP rovider.CreateSnapshotFolders()
at
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Snapshot.MergeSnap shotProvider.CreateSnapshotFolders()
at
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Snapshot.SqlServer SnapshotProvider.GenerateSnapshot()
at Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.SnapshotGeneration Agent.InternalRun()
at Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.AgentCore.Run() (Source: MSSQL_REPL,
Error number: MSSQL_REPL52026)
Get help: http://help/MSSQL_REPL52026
Source: mscorlib
Target Site: Void WinIOError(Int32, System.String)
Message: Message: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password.
Stack: at System.IO.__Error.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String
maybeFullPath)
at System.IO.Directory.InternalCreateDirectory(String fullPath, String
path, DirectorySecurity dirSecurity)
at System.IO.Directory.CreateDirectory(String path, DirectorySecurity
directorySecurity)
at
Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Utilities.CreateDi rectoryWithExtendedErrorInformation(String directory) (Source: mscorlib, Error number: 0)
The user id and password are those of a domain user for the FTP server at
location B. Do I have to use a non-AD account?
You need to use a snapshot account which has rights to modify to
\\172.27.1.187\unc. You specify this account in sp_addpublication_snapshot
using the @.job_login and @.job_password parameters.
This account should exist on \\172.27.1.187 and your publisher.
http://www.zetainteractive.com - Shift Happens!
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"parchk" <parchk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7575E064-365A-49B4-B479-AD3C7D4E14C8@.microsoft.com...
>I have a requirement to replicate a portion of a 2005 database using merge
> replication where the database server is in a workgroup at location A and
> the
> web server is in an AD domain at location B. Both locations are connected
> via a VPN.
> Becuase of the disparate domains we are unable to push snapshots to a
> share
> on the Web Server w/o using FTP. After specifying the FTP information in
> the
> FTP Snapshot and Internet dialog, the following message is returned when
> attempting to start the Snapshot Agent:
> Message: The replication agent failed to create the directory
> '\\172.27.1.187\unc\ftp\DAYMONJPSV02$TEST_CORE_APP RISCORE1\20071218021362\'.
> Stack: at
> Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Utilities.CreateDi rectoryWithExtendedErrorInformation(String
> directory)
> at
> Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Snapshot.SnapshotP rovider.CreateSnapshotFolders()
> at
> Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Snapshot.MergeSnap shotProvider.CreateSnapshotFolders()
> at
> Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Snapshot.SqlServer SnapshotProvider.GenerateSnapshot()
> at Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.SnapshotGeneration Agent.InternalRun()
> at Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.AgentCore.Run() (Source: MSSQL_REPL,
> Error number: MSSQL_REPL52026)
> Get help: http://help/MSSQL_REPL52026
> Source: mscorlib
> Target Site: Void WinIOError(Int32, System.String)
> Message: Message: Logon failure: unknown user name or bad password.
> Stack: at System.IO.__Error.WinIOError(Int32 errorCode, String
> maybeFullPath)
> at System.IO.Directory.InternalCreateDirectory(String fullPath, String
> path, DirectorySecurity dirSecurity)
> at System.IO.Directory.CreateDirectory(String path, DirectorySecurity
> directorySecurity)
> at
> Microsoft.SqlServer.Replication.Utilities.CreateDi rectoryWithExtendedErrorInformation(String
> directory) (Source: mscorlib, Error number: 0)
> The user id and password are those of a domain user for the FTP server at
> location B. Do I have to use a non-AD account?
|||Thanks Hillary. I am assuming that becasue the servers are in two different
security domains that the account should be local on both servers? Also, if
the publication has already been created, can it be modified to modify the
job_login and job_password parameters? Thanks in advance.
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> You need to use a snapshot account which has rights to modify to
> \\172.27.1.187\unc. You specify this account in sp_addpublication_snapshot
> using the @.job_login and @.job_password parameters.
> This account should exist on \\172.27.1.187 and your publisher.
> --
> http://www.zetainteractive.com - Shift Happens!
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "parchk" <parchk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7575E064-365A-49B4-B479-AD3C7D4E14C8@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Exactly, it should be a local account on both servers.
You can modify the snapshot account by right clicking on the publication in
SSMS, selecting properties and clicking on the agent security tab.
http://www.zetainteractive.com - Shift Happens!
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"parchk" <parchk@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:915C3515-3E0A-4755-88B7-DE72D927A0E2@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks Hillary. I am assuming that becasue the servers are in two
> different
> security domains that the account should be local on both servers? Also,
> if
> the publication has already been created, can it be modified to modify the
> job_login and job_password parameters? Thanks in advance.
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:

merge replication w PocketPC and trigger order

Hi
We've got a problen in a customer with SQL Server 2000 SP3 and merge
replication with PocketPC
We have some triggers FOR UPDATE on the same field used to distribute in
replication settings, so I suspect sometimes our triggers didn't work, and
sometimes the first trigger that has been executed were the replication
trigger.
Can I use the sp_settriggerorder to set the order to execute, setting the
replication trihgger as last in execution?
Thanks
Yes you can, I normally make them execute first though.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Ricardo Snchez" <Ricardo Snchez@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:2BA27F4E-0454-4DC0-9DC2-46CD14C7E368@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> We've got a problen in a customer with SQL Server 2000 SP3 and merge
> replication with PocketPC
> We have some triggers FOR UPDATE on the same field used to distribute in
> replication settings, so I suspect sometimes our triggers didn't work, and
> sometimes the first trigger that has been executed were the replication
> trigger.
> Can I use the sp_settriggerorder to set the order to execute, setting the
> replication trihgger as last in execution?
> Thanks
sql

Merge Replication Snapshot Generation - Need Best Practice

SQL Server 2005 & Express
All,
What is a best practice for generating snapshots in my merge
replication topology?
In my topology subscriptions will be coming and going over time.
There will be @.150 users with new employees coming online over time.
Some of the users share hardware and so they may have a subscription
on one machine for several months and then stop using the system for a
few months, and then start a new subscription on a different machine.
In such a scenario would it be better for me to expire subscriptions
on a regular basis?
I would evaluate using anonymous subscribers with dynamic filtering based on
user_name.
I think you will find a smaller retention period will mean shorted sync
times especially if your users are off line for appreciable amounts of time.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Crash" <sourcenexus@.san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1174326055.221629.90730@.n76g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
> SQL Server 2005 & Express
> All,
> What is a best practice for generating snapshots in my merge
> replication topology?
> In my topology subscriptions will be coming and going over time.
> There will be @.150 users with new employees coming online over time.
> Some of the users share hardware and so they may have a subscription
> on one machine for several months and then stop using the system for a
> few months, and then start a new subscription on a different machine.
> In such a scenario would it be better for me to expire subscriptions
> on a regular basis?
>
sql

Merge Replication Slow after period of inactivity

Hi Guys,
I don't know if you can help, I have a couple of issue with Merge
replication running on SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
I install merge replication and build all the snapshot for the pull
subscriptions and create the subscriptions running on the local machines
(MSDE 2000). This particular installation has 70 local machines and 140
subscriptions.
The problem I am seeing is that if the machines are not communicated for a
period of time, even though no data has changed on the local machines or
server, it can take ages for the communications process to complete,
sometimes in excess of 3 hours.
If anyone could shed some light on this issue I would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks Tim.
Have a look at this white paper for hints on what causes this and how to
improve its performance.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...artitioned.asp
"Tim Ford" <timford@.removethisin2focus.com> wrote in message
news:#iNZR#ptEHA.2452@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Guys,
> I don't know if you can help, I have a couple of issue with Merge
> replication running on SQL Server 2000 SP3a.
> I install merge replication and build all the snapshot for the pull
> subscriptions and create the subscriptions running on the local machines
> (MSDE 2000). This particular installation has 70 local machines and 140
> subscriptions.
> The problem I am seeing is that if the machines are not communicated for a
> period of time, even though no data has changed on the local machines or
> server, it can take ages for the communications process to complete,
> sometimes in excess of 3 hours.
> If anyone could shed some light on this issue I would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Thanks Tim.
>

Merge Replication Filtered Publication

Hi People,
I need some help.
I am using SQL Server 2000 and have created a publication using Merge
Replication. One of the tables are filtered as follows:
SELECT <published_columns> FROM [dbo].[tblFingerPrint] WHERE
recordid in (select fingerprintid from tblKeyHolder)
The reason I do this is beacause I only want rows from fingerprint table to
be at the subscriber where the fingerprint ID is being used.
But for some reason it doesnt work, it will work when I reinitilize the
subscription, but not when I do a normal synch.
Can anyone help?
Thanks in advance
Warren
Warren,
can you try adding the table tblKeyHolder to the publication and having an
explicit join?
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Thanks Paul I will give that a try.
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:OlRQ7lcvFHA.664@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Warren,
> can you try adding the table tblKeyHolder to the publication and having an
> explicit join?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Hi,
I tried the following
SELECT <published_columns> FROM [dbo].[tblFingerPrint] INNER
JOIN [dbo].[tblKeyHolder] ON fingerprintid =
[dbo].[tblFingerPrint].recordid
and got this error:
Error 107: The column prefix 'dbo.tblFingerPrint' does not match with a
table name or alias name used in the query.
A column used in filter clause 'fingerprintid =
[dbo].[tblFingerPrint].recordid' either does not exist in the table
'tblKeyholder' or cannot be excluded from the current partition.
Any ideas?
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:OlRQ7lcvFHA.664@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Warren,
> can you try adding the table tblKeyHolder to the publication and having an
> explicit join?
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Hi Warren,
what I was thinking is to use the Filter Rows tab in the publication
properties and using the create join option. You can add 1=1 to the Filter
clause if this is not needed.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)

Merge Replication Error

Dear Friends
I am getting the following error for the Merge
replication.
Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated
with a trusted SQL Server connection.
(Source: SERVER (Data source); Error number: 18452)
The process could not connect to Subscriber 'SERVER'.
(Source: SERVER (Agent); Error number: 20084)
----
Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated
with a trusted SQL Server connection.
(Source: SERVER (Data source); Error number: 18452)
----
I can connect to the Server with Enterprise manager and
also with OSQL. Please suggest what can be the problem.
Best regards
Sharad
Your sql server agent is runing using the defaulot system account you have
to make a user in sql server and assign this user to load sqlserver agents.
do this to both the server so that the agent of publisher can connect to
agent of subscriber.
regards
Kashif
"Sharad" <Niitmalad@.yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:1f8901c5103b$460dc6b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> Dear Friends
> I am getting the following error for the Merge
> replication.
> Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated
> with a trusted SQL Server connection.
> (Source: SERVER (Data source); Error number: 18452)
> The process could not connect to Subscriber 'SERVER'.
> (Source: SERVER (Agent); Error number: 20084)
> ----
> ----
> Login failed for user '(null)'. Reason: Not associated
> with a trusted SQL Server connection.
> (Source: SERVER (Data source); Error number: 18452)
> ----
> ----
> I can connect to the Server with Enterprise manager and
> also with OSQL. Please suggest what can be the problem.
> Best regards
> Sharad
|||Dear Kashif
Thanks for your quick reply. Kindly suggest if i have
diffrent domains then how the same problem can be solved.
Best regards
Sharad

>--Original Message--
>Your sql server agent is runing using the defaulot
system account you have
>to make a user in sql server and assign this user to
load sqlserver agents.
>do this to both the server so that the agent of
publisher can connect to[vbcol=seagreen]
>agent of subscriber.
>regards
>Kashif
>
>"Sharad" <Niitmalad@.yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
>news:1f8901c5103b$460dc6b0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
--[vbcol=seagreen]
--
>
>.
>

Merge replication does not working as expected.

Hi,
I am writing again because I've now confirmed that merge
replication does not work in my case. I'll try to
describe my case in a detailed way, as I need to find the
solution (fix) for this.
I have two servers. One main server A, and one subserver
B (there will be more of subservers).
Server B is receiving data from various applications in a
very irregular way. The data are then supposed to be
moved to server A (moved, not copied).
Server A is Publisher and its own Distributor. Server B
is Subscriber. Subscription is "pull" and "anonymous".
The merge replication with filtering is used. The filter
clause indicates a condition impossible. Thanks to this,
following scenario occurs:
- no rows are initiallyu copied from A server to B,
because A has no rows that fulfill the impossible
condition.
- when there are some rows added on B, when
synchronization occurs, the rows are copied from B to A.
Then all rows received on A are checked against the
impossible filter - because none of it satisfies that
condition, all are deleted on B server.
This works OK when the data are inserted on B "outside"
the replication phase.
But when you will insert the data to B when the
replication is in progress, the merge replication (and
subsequent replications) will fail to clear all the rows
on B, and as a result, table on B will stil have some
records from previous replications (all records are
copied, but not all are deleted). I consider this
behaviour as a bug in sql server replication, as I think
that it should be consistent in all situations.
The best way to reproduce this is to create a stored
procedure that inserts for example 10000 records to B,
and run this procedure few seconds before the start of
replication.
I hope that I gave you some light on the subject. I hope
that there are some MS guys related to replication, and
maybe one of them will be able to help me with this (you
can write directly if you need detailed information).
I'll appreciate any help.
Best regards,
Krzysztof Kruszynski
Paul,
Thanks for the link.
When I was reproducing the issue, I found that sometimes I was unable to disturb the first replication. But the seubsequent runs gave me allways some abandoned rows.
Regards,
Krzysztof
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> Krzysztof,
> I'll try to repro this sometime later this week. Just as
> an aside, as you want to target your newsgroup comment to
> Microsoft, you can use this interface:
> http://communities2.microsoft.com/co.../newsgroups/en
> -us/default.aspx?
> dg=microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication&cat=en-us-
> servers-sqlserver&lang=en&cr=US
> This newsgroup webpage allows you to categorise/filter
> your queries.
> Regards,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||Krzysztof,
yes I can replicate your error. Subsequently doing a dummy
update on the subscriber still didn't ultimately remove
the row from the subscriber. The only way I could resolve
it was to reinitialize, which sounds drastic, but in this
case it merely readds the empty table but resets the
incorrect generation numbers. I'm not on sp3a on this
site, but if you can reproduce it on sp3a, I'd log this
with MS as a bug. Anyway, to resolve your issue, you could
resort to DTS - after all what you are doing is
essentially bypassing normal replication procedures, or
you could reinitialize frequently.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||Hi Paul

> I'm not on sp3a on this site, but if you can reproduce
> it on sp3a, I'd log this with MS as a bug.
I'll try to apply the sp3a and let you know about the results. But I don't know where to log it as a bug (or you will log it?).

> Anyway, to resolve your issue, you could
> resort to DTS - after all what you are doing is
> essentially bypassing normal replication procedures
Yep - I know. and I will probably use DTS or something else, not the replication.
Thanks for your help,
Krzysztof
|||You could post it on the feedback area
(http://register.microsoft.com/mswish/suggestion.asp).
Alternatively you could repost it here FAO Microsoft.
Alternatively a MVP (Hilary?) who sees this might have
some special powers to raise it directly with MS. Probably
just leaving it as it is will be sufficient as these
newsgroups are monitored by MS staff as a matter of course.
Regards,
Paul Ibison

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

merge replication and simple recovery model

Hi All,
Is it possible or okay for setting the publishing DB in a merge
replication setup to Simple recovery model instead of the current
Bulk-logged model?
Will this have an impact to the subscribers?
Thanks.
Aramid
Merge doesn't use the transaction log in the same way as transactional, but
even in this case it is a common misconception that FULL recovery mode is
necessary, so to answer your question 'Yes' - it has no effect as far as the
correct workings of replication are concerned.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)

Merge Replication + Structure Changes

My company maintains 40 replicated Sybase databases using a merge
replication approach. It's difficult to update all 40 databases when a
structure change occurs. Structure changes are minor, usually adding
fields.

We are considering moving to SQL Server 2000 in the hope that these
updates will be easier to do. Does SQL Server 2000 support structure
updates accross replicated databases?

Martin"Martin McNally" <mcnally_martin@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cf569e1.0405031052.574c19e9@.posting.google.c om...
> My company maintains 40 replicated Sybase databases using a merge
> replication approach. It's difficult to update all 40 databases when a
> structure change occurs. Structure changes are minor, usually adding
> fields.
> We are considering moving to SQL Server 2000 in the hope that these
> updates will be easier to do. Does SQL Server 2000 support structure
> updates accross replicated databases?
> Martin

MSSQL supports adding or dropping columns while using any type of
replication. You might want to post this in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication, as people there may be able to give
more detail about any common issues or disadvantages.

Simon|||mcnally_martin@.hotmail.com (Martin McNally) wrote in message news:<3cf569e1.0405031052.574c19e9@.posting.google.com>...
> My company maintains 40 replicated Sybase databases using a merge
> replication approach. It's difficult to update all 40 databases when a
> structure change occurs. Structure changes are minor, usually adding
> fields.
> We are considering moving to SQL Server 2000 in the hope that these
> updates will be easier to do. Does SQL Server 2000 support structure
> updates accross replicated databases?
> Martin

hello martin!!

Try dbMaestro. It's a product that allows comparison, migration and
archiving of database schema and data in Sql Server 2000. by migration
you can updates structures of databases and data.

You can find it here:

http://www.extreme.co.il