Red Gate forums :: View topic - Filter excluding Partition Scheme not working on cmdline
Return to www.red-gate.com RSS Feed Available

Search  | Usergroups |  Profile |  Messages |  Log in  Register 
Go to product documentation
SQL Compare 10
SQL Compare 10 forum

Filter excluding Partition Scheme not working on cmdline

Search in SQL Compare 10 forum
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Author Message
TetonSig



Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:53 pm    Post subject: Filter excluding Partition Scheme not working on cmdline Reply with quote

I am using a SQL Compare Filter to exclude all Partition Schemes from my SQL Compare between a scripts folder (Source) and Database (Destination).

If I run the SQL Compare UI , it work as expected. With the filter in place the UI tells me that there are no differences. If I force another difference by removing a filter I have on Users. The UI tells me correctly that only the User is different and when I generate the deployment script only the User change is scripted.

However, when I use the SQL Compare command line, it does not work as expected. With the filter in place the Interactive HTML SchemaReport.HTML correctly shows no differences. However the file generated by the /ScriptFile output looks as if the filter on Partition Scheme is not in place and includes the changes to the Partition Scheme between the two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TetonSig



Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, if I change something else like a stored proc, the Interactive HTML Report accurately reflects that as the only change. And it is also included as a change in the Output SQL. However the output SQL still includes the partition scheme synchronization that should be excluded by the filter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TetonSig



Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also just confirmed I have the same behavior with filtering out Partition Function in another database I'm working on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TetonSig



Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I can also confirm that if I do nothing else except add the IgnoreFileGroups option, the problem goes away.

However, because of the issue described here

http://www.red-gate.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=14710

I can't use that option. (And these are Partition Schemes and Partition Functions, not Filegroups anyway Very Happy )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Auckland



Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 755
Location: Red Gate Software Ltd.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your post.

We've had a couple of reports of slightly similar issues with partition function / schemes, so I think there is an issue with v10.

I'll try and reproduce the problem and let you know what's going to be done.

If I can't reproduce it I'll probably come back to you for some more information.

Thanks for reporting this to us.
_________________
Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TetonSig



Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the response! Look forward to hearing from you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Auckland



Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 755
Location: Red Gate Software Ltd.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've had a go at reproducing this, but in my test it seems to filter out the partition function from the sql script.

Can you post the command you're using?
_________________
Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TetonSig



Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like if I remove IncludeDependencies option, the issue goes away. That's fine because we probably want to be explicit about deploying those anyway. I assume that makes this not a bug, because if I say include dependencies that's going to include the underlying PS and PF.

Thanks for looking into it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group