Search Results

Search found 4704 results on 189 pages for 'refactoring databases'.

Page 9/189 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • How would you rewrite/refactor this ?

    - by frostings
    Old application that is used by 50-60.000 paying customers. Company is several hundred people big. Application has a lot of business critical code (30% of all code) written in classic asp. Application has a lot more .net code. Application has a COM+ bridge for enabling asp to "talk" to .net Organization lacks some/a lot knowledge on what is causing the 10-20% server-reset per day (might be due to COM+ ?) There is no red line through the application; no architecture, no real patterns etc. The application has been like this for at least 5 years. The asp code base is increasing, slowly but certainly. I have read refactoring stories and I have knowledge on why you some of the times should not re-write a system. I would love for the old asp code to vanish as well as the COM+ component. But the pain is that no one really knows what is going on inside the asp classic code and the attitude inside all the teams are "this is just how it is". Down the line, this causes a lot of other issues like recruiting, dev effeciency, business needs that cannot be met, scale etc. With these little facts, does that justify a re-write of the asp code and the removal of the COM+ component ? How would you go about it ?

    Read the article

  • What can be the cause of new bugs appearing somewhere else when a known bug is solved?

    - by MainMa
    During a discussion, one of my colleagues told that he has some difficulties with his current project while trying to solve bugs. "When I solve one bug, something else stops working elsewhere", he said. I started to think about how this could happen, but can't figure it out. I have sometimes similar problems when I am too tired/sleepy to do the work correctly and to have an overall view of the part of the code I was working on. Here, the problem seems to be for a few days or weeks, and is not related to the focus of my colleague. I can also imagine this problem arising on a very large project, very badly managed, where teammates don't have any idea of who does what, and what effect on other's work can have a change they are doing. This is not the case here neither: it's a rather small project with only one developer. It can also be an issue with old, badly maintained and never documented codebase, where the only developers who can really imagine the consequences of a change had left the company years ago. Here, the project just started, and the developer doesn't use anyone's codebase. So what can be the cause of such issue on a fresh, small-size codebase written by a single developer who stays focused on his work? What may help? Unit tests (there are none)? Proper architecture (I'm pretty sure that the codebase has no architecture at all and was written with no preliminary thinking), requiring the whole refactoring? Pair programming? Something else?

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a myriad of similar classes

    - by TobiMcNamobi
    I'm faced with similar classes A1, A2, ..., A100. Believe it or not but yeah, there are roughly hundred classes that almost look the same. None of these classes are unit tested (of course ;-) ). Each of theses classes is about 50 lines of code which is not too much by itself. Still this is way too much duplicated code. I consider the following options: Writing tests for A1, ..., A100. Then refactor by creating an abstract base class AA. Pro: I'm (near to totally) safe by the tests that nothing goes wrong. Con: Much effort. Duplication of test code. Writing tests for A1, A2. Abstracting the duplicated test code and using the abstraction to create the rest of the tests. Then create AA as in 1. Pro: Less effort than in 1 but maintaining a similar degree of safety. Con: I find generalized test code weird; it often seems ... incoherent (is this the right word?). Normally I prefer specialized test code for specialized classes. But that requires a good design which is my goal of this whole refactoring. Writing AA first, testing it with mock classes. Then inheriting A1, ..., A100 successively. Pro: Fastest way to eliminate duplicates. Con: Most Ax classes look very much the same. But if not, there is the danger of changing the code by inheriting from AA. Other options ... At first I went for 3. because the Ax classes are really very similar to each other. But now I'm a bit unsure if this is the right way (from a unit testing enthusiast's perspective).

    Read the article

  • Naming a class that processes orders

    - by p.campbell
    I'm in the midst of refactoring a project. I've recently read Clean Code, and want to heed some of the advice within, with particular interest in Single Responsibility Principle (SRP). Currently, there's a class called OrderProcessor in the context of a manufacturing product order system. This class is currently performs the following routine every n minutes: check database for newly submitted + unprocessed orders (via a Data Layer class already, phew!) gather all the details of the orders mark them as in-process iterate through each to: perform some integrity checking call a web service on a 3rd party system to place the order check status return value of the web service for success/fail email somebody if web service returns fail constantly log to a text file on each operation or possible fail point I've started by breaking out this class into new classes like: OrderService - poor name. This is the one that wakes up every n minutes OrderGatherer - calls the DL to get the order from the database OrderIterator (? seems too forced or poorly named) - OrderPlacer - calls web service to place the order EmailSender Logger I'm struggling to find good names for each class, and implementing SRP in a reasonable way. How could this class be separated into new class with discrete responsibilities?

    Read the article

  • Which approach is the most maintainable?

    - by 2rs2ts
    When creating a product which will inherently suffer from regression due to OS updates, which of these is the preferable approach when trying to reduce maintenance cost and the likelihood of needing refactoring, when considering the task of interpreting system state and settings for a lay user? Delegate the responsibility of interpreting the results of inspecting the system to the modules which perform these tasks, or, Separate the concerns of interpretation and inspection into two modules? The first obviously creates a blob in which a lot of code would be verbose, redundant, and hard to grok; the second creates a strong coupling in which the interpretation module essentially has to know what it expects from inspection routines and will have to adapt to changes to the OS just as much as the inspection will. I would normally choose the second option for the separation of concerns, foreseeing the possibility that inspection routines could be re-used, but a developer updating the product to deal with a new OS feature or something would have to not only write an inspection routine but also write an interpretation routine and link the two correctly - and it gets worse for a developer who has to change which inspection routines are used to get a certain system setting, or worse yet, has to fix an inspection routine which broke after an OS patch. I wonder, is it better to have to patch one package a lot or two packages, each somewhat less so?

    Read the article

  • Good design for class with similar constructors

    - by RustyTheBoyRobot
    I was reading this question and thought that good points were made, but most of the solutions involved renaming one of the methods. I am refactoring some poorly written code and I've run into this situation: public class Entity { public Entity(String uniqueIdentifier, boolean isSerialNumber) { if (isSerialNumber) { this.serialNumber = uniqueIdentifier; //Lookup other data } else { this.primaryKey = uniqueIdentifier; // Lookup other data with different query } } } The obvious design flaw is that someone needed two different ways to create the object, but couldn't overload the constructor since both identifiers were of the same type (String). Thus they added a flag to differentiate. So, my question is this: when this situation arises, what are good designs for differentiating between these two ways of instantiating an object? My First Thoughts You could create two different static methods to create your object. The method names could be different. This is weak because static methods don't get inherited. You could create different objects to force the types to be different (i.e., make a PrimaryKey class and a SerialNumber class). I like this because it seems to be a better design, but it also is a pain to refactor if serialNumber is a String everywhere else.

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

  • Dealing with bilingual(spoken language) code?

    - by user1525
    So I've got to work with this set of code here for a re-write, and it's written by people who speak both English and French. Here's a snapshot of what I'm talking about (only, about 4000 lines of this) function refreshDest(FormEnCours,dest,hotel,duration) { var GateEnCours; GateEnCours = FormEnCours.gateway_dep.options[FormEnCours.gateway_dep.selectedIndex].value; if (GateEnCours == "") { FormEnCours.dest_dep.length = 0 } else if (FormEnCours.dest_dep != null && FormEnCours.dest_dep.type && FormEnCours.dest_dep.value != "ALL") { if (Destinations[GateEnCours] == null || Destinations[GateEnCours].length == 0) { RetreiveDestinations(FormEnCours,GateEnCours,dest,hotel,duration); } else { refreshDestSuite(FormEnCours,GateEnCours,dest,hotel,duration); } } } function refreshDuration(FormEnCours,GateEnCours,DestEnCours,hotel,duration) { // Refresh durations var FlagMoinsDe5Jours = ""; var Flag5a10jours = ""; var Flag11a16jours = ""; var FlagPlusDe16Jours = ""; ....... Is there any approach that I, as a speaker of only one of these languages, can use to make this entire process a lot less painful for both figuring out what everything does, and then refactoring it?

    Read the article

  • Databases and the CI server

    - by mlk
    I have a CI server (Hudson) which merrily builds, runs unit tests and deploys to the development environment but I'd now like to get it running the integration tests. The integration tests will hit a database and that database will be consistently being changed to contain the data relevant to the test in question. This however leads to a problem - how do I make sure the database is not being splatted with data for one test and then that data being override by a second project before the first set of tests complete? I am current using the "hope" method, which is not working out too badly at the moment, but mostly due to the fact that we only have a small number of integration tests set up on CI. As I see it I have the following options: Test-local (in memory) databases I'm not sure if any in-memory databases handle all the scaryness of Oracles triggers and packages etc, and anything less I don't feel would be a worth while test. CI Executor-local databasesA fair amount of work would be needed to set this up and keep 'em up to date, but defiantly an option (most of the work is already done to keep the current CI database up-to-date). Single "integration test" executorLikely the easiest to implement, but would mean the integration tests could fall quite far behind. Locking the database (or set of tables) I'm sure I've missed some ways (please add them). How do you run database-based integration tests on the CI server? What issues have you had and what method do you recommend? (Note: While I use Hudson, I'm happy to accept answers for any CI server, the ideas I'm sure will be portable, even if the details are not). Cheers,      Mlk

    Read the article

  • SQL 2K5 - Multiple databases vs. Multiple files

    - by Bob Palmer
    Hey all, quick question. Our current legacy system was built using multiple distinct databases (about ten of them). These are all part of the same discreet system, and a large number of SPs and functionalty span multiple databases. There are also key relationships that span (for example, a header table may be in database A with history, etc. in database B). When deploying multiple copies of our app to the same server therefore, we have to use multiple instances (because the database names are coded into so many sprocs). We're evaluating the idea of taking these ten databases (about 30gb total with individual sizes ranging from 100mb to 10gb) and merging them into a single database. Currently, we have our databases spread accross multiple spindles for better IO. The question I have is whether or not there is any performance loss or benefit of having 10 different databases vs. 10 different database files? i.e. rather than having three databases (A, B, and C) Disk D: A.mdf (1gb) Disk E: B.mdf (4gb) Disk F: C.mdf (10gb) Disk G: A_Log.ldf, B_Log.ldf, C_Log.ldf have one database (X) Disk D: X1.mdf (5gb) Disk E: X2.mdf (5gb) Disk F: X3.mdf (5gb) Disk G: X1_log.ldf,X2_log.ldf,X3_log.ldf Thanks! -Bob

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – An Efficiency Tool to Compare and Synchronize SQL Server Databases

    - by Pinal Dave
    There is no need to reinvent the wheel if it is already invented and if the wheel is already available at ease, there is no need to wait to grab it. Here is the similar situation. I came across a very interesting situation and I had to look for an efficient tool which can make my life easier and solve my business problem. Here is the scenario. One of the developers had deleted few rows from the very important mapping table of our development server (thankfully, it was not the production server). Though it was a development server, the entire development team had to stop working as the application started to crash on every page. Think about the lost of manpower and efficiency which we started to loose.  Pretty much every department had to stop working as our internal development application stopped working. Thankfully, we even take a backup of our development server and we had access to full backup of the entire database at 6 AM morning. We do not take as a frequent backup of development server as production server (naturally!). Even though we had a full backup, the solution was not to restore the database. Think about it, there were plenty of the other operations since the last good full backup and if we restore a full backup, we will pretty much overwrite on the top of the work done by developers since morning. Now, as restoring the full backup was not an option we decided to restore the same database on another server. Once we had restored our database to another server, the challenge was to compare the table from where the database was deleted. The mapping table from where the data were deleted contained over 5000 rows and it was humanly impossible to compare both the tables manually. Finally we decided to use efficiency tool dbForge Data Compare for SQL Server from DevArt. dbForge Data Compare for SQL Server is a powerful, fast and easy to use SQL compare tool, capable of using native SQL Server backups as metadata source. (FYI we Downloaded dbForge Data Compare) Once we discovered the product, we immediately downloaded the product and installed on our development server. After we installed the product, we were greeted with the following screen. We clicked on the New Data Comparision to start our new comparison project. It brought up following screen. Here is the best part of the product, we just had to enter our database connection username and password along with source and destination details and we are done. The entire process is very simple and self intuiting. The best part was that for the source, we can either select database or even backup. This was indeed fantastic feature. Think about this, if you have a very big database, it will take long time to restore on the server. Once it is restored, you will be able to work with it. However, when you are working with dbForge Data Compare it will accept database backup as your source or destination. Once I click on the execute it brought up following screen where it displayed an excellent summary of the data compare. It has dedicated tabs for the what is changing in what table as well had details of the changed data. The best part is that, once we had reviewed the change. We click on the Synchronize button in the menu bar and it brought up following screen. You can see that the screen has very simple straight forward but very powerful features. You can generate a script to synchronize from target to source or even from source to target. Additionally, the database is a very complicated world and there are extensive options to configure various database options on the next screen. We also have the option to either generate script or directly execute the script to target server. I like to play on the safe side and I generated the script for my synchronization and later on after review I deployed the scripts on the server. Well, my team and we were able to get going from our disaster in less than 10 minutes. There were few people in our team were indeed disappointed as they were thinking of going home early that day but in less than 10 minutes they had to get back to work. There are so many other features in  dbForge Data Compare for SQL Server, I am already planning to make this product company wide recommended product for Data Compare tool. Hats off to the team who have build this product. Here are few of the features salient features of the dbForge Data Compare for SQL Server Perform SQL Server database comparison to detect changes Compare SQL Server backups with live databases Analyze data differences between two databases Synchronize two databases that went out of sync Restore data of a particular table from the backup Generate data comparison reports in Excel and HTML formats Copy look-up data from development database to production Automate routine data synchronization tasks with command-line interface Go Ahead and Download the dbForge Data Compare for SQL Server right away. It is always a good idea to get familiar with the important tools before hand instead of learning it under pressure of disaster. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, SQL Utility, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • What to do when you inherit an unmaintainable codebase?

    - by GordonM
    I'm currently working at a company with 2 other PHP developers aside from me, and 1 junior developer. The senior developer who originally built the system we're all working on has resigned and will only be here for a matter of weeks. The other developer, who is the only other guy who knows anything about the system, is unhappy here and is looking for a new job. I'm very real danger of being left behind as the only experienced developer on this codebase. Since I've joined this company I've tried to push for better coding standards, project documentation, etc and I do think I've made some headway, but the vast majority of the code is simply unmaintainable and uncommented. A lot of this has to do with the need to get things done fast at points in the project before I joined, but now the technical debt is enormous, even with the two developers who do understand the system on board. Without them, it will simply be impossible to do anything with it. The senior developer is working on trying to at least comment all his code before he leaves but I think the codebase is simply too vast to properly document in the remaining time. Besides, when he does comment it still doesn't make things as clear as it could. If the system was better organized and documented I could probably start refactoring it incrementally, but the whole thing is so tightly coupled that it's very difficult to make any changes in one module without having unintended knock-on effects in other modules. Naturally, there's no unit tests either, and I honestly don't think this codebase could possibly be unit tested anyway given how it's implemented. There also never seems to be enough time to get things done even with 3 developers and 1 junior developer. With one developer and one junior, neither of which had significant input into the early design of the system, I don't see how we could possibly get anything done with keeping the current system working, implementing new features as needed and developing a replacement for the current codebase that is better organized. Is there an approach I can take to cope with this situation, or should I be getting my own CV in order as well at this point? If it was just me and the junior designer who would be left I'd go for the latter option almost without question. However, there's a team of front-end developers and content managers as well, and I'm worried what would become of them if I left and put them in a position where there would be no developers at all. The department might just be closed down altogether under such circumstances, and then I'd have their unemployment on my conscience as well!

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a method which breaks "The law of Demeter" principle?

    - by dreza
    I often find myself breaking this principle (not intentially, just through bad design). However recently I've seen a bit of code that I'm not sure of the best approach. I have a number of classes. For simplicity I've taken out the bulk of the classes methods etc public class Paddock { public SoilType Soil { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around paddock information } public class SoilType { public SoilDrainageType Drainage { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around soil types } public class SoilDrainageType { // a whole bunch of public properties that expose soil drainage values public double GetProportionOfDrainage(SoilType soil, double blockRatio) { // This method does a number of calculations using public properties // exposed off SoilType as well as the blockRatio value in some conditions } } In the code I have seen in a number of places calls like so paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); or within the block object itself in places it's Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.Soil, this.GetBlockRatio()); Upon reading this seems to break "The Law of Demeter" in that I'm chaining together these properties to access the method I want. So my thought in order to adjust this was to create public methods on SoilType and Paddock that contains wrappers i.e. on paddock it would be public class Paddock { public double GetProportionOfDrainage() { return Soil.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.GetBlockRatio()); } } on the SoilType it would be public class SoilType { public double GetProportionOfDrainage(double blockRatio) { return Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this, blockRatio); } } so now calls where it used would be simply // used outside of paddock class where we can access instances of Paddock paddock.GetProportionofDrainage() or this.GetProportionOfDrainage(); // if used within Paddock class This seemed like a nice alternative. However now I have a concern over how would I enforce this usage and stop anyone else from writing code such as paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); rather than just paddock.GetProportionOfDrainage(); I need the properties to remain public at this stage as they are too ingrained in usage throughout the code block. However I don't really want a mixture of accessing the method on DrainageType directly as that seems to defeat the purpose altogether. What would be the appropiate design approach in this situation? I can provide more information as required to better help in answers. Is my thoughts on refactoring this even appropiate or should is it best to leave it as is and use the property chaining to access the method as and when required?

    Read the article

  • Log & monitor mysql databases on servers

    - by user3215
    How MySQL databases logged and monitored on ubuntu servers in real time?. I checked /var/log/mysql.log and found it empty. EDIT 1: The log was not enabled in the mysql configuration file. Now it logs and I could see the logs in the file /var/log/mysql/mysql.log But this could not be sufficient to gather additional information about the database logs. Is there any other way or any popular open source tool?

    Read the article

  • Log & monitor mysql databases on servers

    - by user3215
    How MySQL databases logged and monitored on ubuntu servers in real time?. I checked /var/log/mysql.log and found it empty. EDIT 1: The log was not enabled in the mysql configuration file. Now it logs and I could see the logs in the file /var/log/mysql/mysql.log But this could not be sufficient to gather additional information about the database logs. Is there any other way or any popular open source tool?

    Read the article

  • Restoring databases to a set drive and directory

    - by okeofs
     Restoring databases to a set drive and directory Introduction Often people say that necessity is the mother of invention. In this case I was faced with the dilemma of having to restore several databases, with multiple ‘ndf’ files, and having to restore them with different physical file names, drives and directories on servers other than the servers from which they originated. As most of us would do, I went to Google to see if I could find some code to achieve this task and found some interesting snippets on Pinal Dave’s website. Naturally, I had to take it further than the code snippet, HOWEVER it was a great place to start. Creating a temp table to hold database file details First off, I created a temp table which would hold the details of the individual data files within the database. Although there are a plethora of fields (within the temp table below), I utilize LogicalName only within this example. The temporary table structure may be seen below:   create table #tmp ( LogicalName nvarchar(128)  ,PhysicalName nvarchar(260)  ,Type char(1)  ,FileGroupName nvarchar(128)  ,Size numeric(20,0)  ,MaxSize numeric(20,0), Fileid tinyint, CreateLSN numeric(25,0), DropLSN numeric(25, 0), UniqueID uniqueidentifier, ReadOnlyLSN numeric(25,0), ReadWriteLSN numeric(25,0), BackupSizeInBytes bigint, SourceBlocSize int, FileGroupId int, LogGroupGUID uniqueidentifier, DifferentialBaseLSN numeric(25,0), DifferentialBaseGUID uniqueidentifier, IsReadOnly bit, IsPresent bit,  TDEThumbPrint varchar(50) )    We now declare and populate a variable(@path), setting the variable to the path to our SOURCE database backup. declare @path varchar(50) set @path = 'P:\DATA\MYDATABASE.bak'   From this point, we insert the file details of our database into the temp table. Note that we do so by utilizing a restore statement HOWEVER doing so in ‘filelistonly’ mode.   insert #tmp EXEC ('restore filelistonly from disk = ''' + @path + '''')   At this point, I depart from what I gleaned from Pinal Dave.   I now instantiate a few more local variables. The use of each variable will be evident within the cursor (which follows):   Declare @RestoreString as Varchar(max) Declare @NRestoreString as NVarchar(max) Declare @LogicalName  as varchar(75) Declare @counter as int Declare @rows as int set @counter = 1 select @rows = COUNT(*) from #tmp  -- Count the number of records in the temp                                    -- table   Declaring and populating the cursor At this point I do realize that many people are cringing about the use of a cursor. Being an Oracle professional as well, I have learnt that there is a time and place for cursors. I would remind the reader that the data that will be read into the cursor is from a local temp table and as such, any locking of the records (within the temp table) is not really an issue.   DECLARE MY_CURSOR Cursor  FOR  Select LogicalName  From #tmp   Parsing the logical names from within the cursor. A small caveat that works in our favour,  is that the first logical name (of our database) is the logical name of the primary data file (.mdf). Other files, except for the very last logical name, belong to secondary data files. The last logical name is that of our database log file.   I now open my cursor and populate the variable @RestoreString Open My_Cursor  set @RestoreString =  'RESTORE DATABASE [MYDATABASE] FROM DISK = N''P:\DATA\ MYDATABASE.bak''' + ' with  '   We now fetch the first record from the temp table.   Fetch NEXT FROM MY_Cursor INTO @LogicalName   While there are STILL records left within the cursor, we dynamically build our restore string. Note that we are using concatenation to create ‘one big restore executable string’.   Note also that the target physical file name is hardwired, as is the target directory.   While (@@FETCH_STATUS <> -1) BEGIN IF (@@FETCH_STATUS <> -2) -- As long as there are no rows missing select @RestoreString = case  when @counter = 1 then -- This is the mdf file    @RestoreString + 'move  N''' + @LogicalName + '''' + ' TO N’’X:\DATA1\'+ @LogicalName + '.mdf' + '''' + ', '   -- OK, if it passes through here we are dealing with an .ndf file -- Note that Counter must be greater than 1 and less than the number of rows.   when @counter > 1 and @counter < @rows then -- These are the ndf file(s)    @RestoreString + 'move  N''' + @LogicalName + '''' + ' TO N’’X:\DATA1\'+ @LogicalName + '.ndf' + '''' + ', '   -- OK, if it passes through here we are dealing with the log file When @LogicalName like '%log%' then    @RestoreString + 'move  N''' + @LogicalName + '''' + ' TO N’’X:\DATA1\'+ @LogicalName + '.ldf' +'''' end --Increment the counter   set @counter = @counter + 1 FETCH NEXT FROM MY_CURSOR INTO @LogicalName END   At this point we have populated the varchar(max) variable @RestoreString with a concatenation of all the necessary file names. What we now need to do is to run the sp_executesql stored procedure, to effect the restore.   First, we must place our ‘concatenated string’ into an nvarchar based variable. Obviously this will only work as long as the length of @RestoreString is less than varchar(max) / 2.   set @NRestoreString = @RestoreString EXEC sp_executesql @NRestoreString   Upon completion of this step, the database should be restored to the server. I now close and deallocate the cursor, and to be clean, I would also drop my temp table.   CLOSE MY_CURSOR DEALLOCATE MY_CURSOR GO   Conclusion Restoration of databases on different servers with different physical names and on different drives are a fact of life. Through the use of a few variables and a simple cursor, we may achieve an efficient and effective way to achieve this task.

    Read the article

  • Management of Windows Azure SQL Databases via PowerShell with REST APIs

    Management of Azure SQL Databases has been greatly simplified by the introduction of the Azure PowerShell module. Marcin Policht describes the principles of dealing with the Azure PowerShell module’s REST APIs directly. FREE eBook – "45 Database Performance Tips for Developers"Improve your database performance with 45 tips from SQL Server MVPs and industry experts. Get the eBook here.

    Read the article

  • Why are there connections open to my databases?

    - by Everett
    I have a program that stores user projects as databases. Naturally, the program should allow the user to create and delete the databases as they need to. When the program boots up, it looks for all the databases in a specific SQLServer instance that have the structure the program is expecting. These database are then loaded into a listbox so the user can pick one to open as a project to work on. When I try to delete a database from the program, I always get an SQL error saying that the database is currently open and the operation fails. I've determined that the code that checks for the databases to load is causing the problem. I'm not sure why though, because I'm quite sure that all the connections are being properly closed. Here are all the relevant functions. After calling BuildProjectList, running "DROP DATABASE database_name" from ExecuteSQL fails with the message: "Cannot drop database because it is currently in use". I'm using SQLServer 2005. private SqlConnection databaseConnection; private string connectionString; private ArrayList databases; public ArrayList BuildProjectList() { //databases is an ArrayList of all the databases in an instance if (databases.Count <= 0) { return null; } ArrayList databaseNames = new ArrayList(); for (int i = 0; i < databases.Count; i++) { string db = databases[i].ToString(); connectionString = "Server=localhost\\SQLExpress;Trusted_Connection=True;Database=" + db + ";"; //Check if the database has the table required for the project string sql = "select * from TableExpectedToExist"; if (ExecuteSQL(sql)) { databaseNames.Add(db); } } return databaseNames; } private bool ExecuteSQL(string sql) { bool success = false; openConnection(); SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(sql, databaseConnection); try { cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); success = true; } catch (SqlException ae) { MessageBox.Show(ae.Message.ToString()); } closeConnection(); return success; } public void openConnection() { databaseConnection = new SqlConnection(connectionString); try { databaseConnection.Open(); } catch(Exception e) { MessageBox.Show(e.ToString(), "Error", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error); } } public void closeConnection() { if (databaseConnection != null) { try { databaseConnection.Close(); } catch (Exception e) { MessageBox.Show(e.ToString(), "Error", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error); } } }

    Read the article

  • Databases in Source Control

    - by Grant Fritchey
    I’ve been working as a database professional for quite a long time. But originally, I was a developer. And I loved being a developer. There was this constant feedback loop of a job well done, your code compiled and it ran. Every time this happened successfully, you’d check it into source control. These days you have to add another step; the code passed all the tests, unit, line, regression, qa, whatever, then into source control it goes. As a matter of fact, when I first made the jump from developer to DBA/database developer/database professional, source control was the one thing I couldn’t believe was missing from the DBA toolbox. Come to find out, source control was only the beginning of what was missing from your standard DBAs set of skills. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not disrespecting the DBA. They’re focused where they should be, on your production data. But there has to be a method for developing applications that include databases and the database side of that development and deployment process has long been lacking. This lack of development and deployment methodologies is a part of what has given rise to some of the wackier implementations of Object Relational Mapping tools, the NoSQL movement, and some of the other foul cursing that is directed towards databases, DBAs, and database development by application developers. Some of that is well earned. A lot isn’t. But it is a fact that database professionals, in general, do not have as sophisticated a model for managing development and deployment as application developers do. We could charge out and start trying to come up with our own standards and methods. I’m sure people have done exactly that. However, I’m lazy, and not terribly bright. Rather than try to invent a whole new process, I’m going to look to my developer roots and choose instead to emulate the developers. They’re sitting over there across the hall from me working with SCRUM/Agile/Waterfall/Object Driven/Feature Driven/Test Driven development processes that they’ve been polishing for years. What if I just started working on database development the same way they work on code development? Win! Ah, but now I have to have a mechanism for treating my database like application code. First, I need a method for getting it into source control. That’s where Red Gate’s SQL Source Control comes into the picture. SQL Source Control works within SQL Server Management Studio to connect your database objects up to the source control system of your choice. Right out of the box SQL Source Control can link to TFS, SVN or Vault. With a little work you can connect it to Git or just about any other source control system. With the ability to get my database into source control, a lot of possibilities for more direct integration with the application development teams open up.

    Read the article

  • Documentation and Test Assertions in Databases

    - by Phil Factor
    When I first worked with Sybase/SQL Server, we thought our databases were impressively large but they were, by today’s standards, pathetically small. We had one script to build the whole database. Every script I ever read was richly annotated; it was more like reading a document. Every table had a comment block, and every line would be commented too. At the end of each routine (e.g. procedure) was a quick integration test, or series of test assertions, to check that nothing in the build was broken. We simply ran the build script, stored in the Version Control System, and it pulled everything together in a logical sequence that not only created the database objects but pulled in the static data. This worked fine at the scale we had. The advantage was that one could, by reading the source code, reach a rapid understanding of how the database worked and how one could interface with it. The problem was that it was a system that meant that only one developer at the time could work on the database. It was very easy for a developer to execute accidentally the entire build script rather than the selected section on which he or she was working, thereby cleansing the database of everyone else’s work-in-progress and data. It soon became the fashion to work at the object level, so that programmers could check out individual views, tables, functions, constraints and rules and work on them independently. It was then that I noticed the trend to generate the source for the VCS retrospectively from the development server. Tables were worst affected. You can, of course, add or delete a table’s columns and constraints retrospectively, which means that the existing source no longer represents the current object. If, after your development work, you generate the source from the live table, then you get no block or line comments, and the source script is sprinkled with silly square-brackets and other confetti, thereby rendering it visually indigestible. Routines, too, were affected. In our system, every routine had a directly attached string of unit-tests. A retro-generated routine has no unit-tests or test assertions. Yes, one can still commit our test code to the VCS but it’s a separate module and teams end up running the whole suite of tests for every individual change, rather than just the tests for that routine, which doesn’t scale for database testing. With Extended properties, one can get the best of both worlds, and even use them to put blame, praise or annotations into your VCS. It requires a lot of work, though, particularly the script to generate the table. The problem is that there are no conventional names beyond ‘MS_Description’ for the special use of extended properties. This makes it difficult to do splendid things such ensuring the integrity of the build by running a suite of tests that are actually stored in extended properties within the database and therefore the VCS. We have lost the readability of database source code over the years, and largely jettisoned the use of test assertions as part of the database build. This is not unexpected in view of the increasing complexity of the structure of databases and number of programmers working on them. There must, surely, be a way of getting them back, but I sometimes wonder if I’m one of very few who miss them.

    Read the article

  • Can I get a dump of all my databases *except one* using mysqldump?

    - by Daniel Magliola
    I'm currently using mySQLdump to backup my dev machine and servers. There is one project I just started, however, that has a HUUUUUGE database that I don't really need backed up, and i'll be a big problem to add it to the rest of the backup cycle. I'm currently doing this: "c:\Program Files\mysql\MySQL Server 5.1\bin\mysqldump" -u root -pxxxxxx --all-databases g:\backups\MySQL\mysqlbackup.sql Is it possible to somehow specify "except this database(s)"? I wouldn't like to have to specify the list of DBs manually, since that would mean that I'd have to remember updating my backup batch file every time I create a new DB, and I know that's not gonna happen. EDIT: As you probably guessed from my command line above, i'm doing this on Windows, so I can't do any kind of fancy bash stuff, only wimpy .bat things. Alternatively, if you have other ideas to solve this same issue, they are more than welcome, of course! Thanks Daniel

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >