Having an argument with my team. We are developing an application using SQLite and some want to add it to the repo (GIT) and some don't. Previously with RDBMS system there has been no perceived benefit of using VCS on the DB. However SQLite is a self contained file with no external dependencies so i assume, even though it is binary, that a commit of the project code + the SQLite file will give an accurate snapshot of the state of play at that point.
I also assume that a branch and merge would work as well.
Has anyone actually done this and if so does it work?
You'd get more benefit from GIT's versioning facilities if you stored a dump of the SQLite database (i.e. commands required to create it) rather than the database file itself. That way you could look at the history of the dump file and see tables or data being added etc.
Generally speaking, it's preferable to include full set of dependencies in a VCS repository. This makes your life a whole lot simpler.
If you're after versioning DB schema, check out Wizardby.
Related
We have not used Flyway from the beginning of our project. We are at an advanced state of development. An expert review has suggested to use Flyway in our project.
The problem is that we have moved part of our services (microservices) into another testing environment as well.
What is the best way to properly implement Flyway? The requirements are:
In Development environment, no need to alter the schema which is already existing. But all new scripts should be done using Flyway.
In Testing environment, no need to alter the schema which is already existing. But what is not available in testing environment should be created automatically using Flyway when we do migrate project from Dev to test.
When we do migration to a totally new envrionment (UAT, Production etc) the entire schema should be created automatically using Flyway.
From the documentation, what I understood is:
Take a backup of the development schema (both DDL and DML) as SQL script files, give a file name like V1_0_1__initial.sql.
Clean the development database using "flyway clean".
Baseline the Development database "flyway baseline -baselineversion=1.0.0"
Now, execute "flyway migrate" which will apply the SQL script file V1_0_1__initial.sql.
Any new scripts should be written with higher version numbers (like V2_0_1__account_table.sql)
Is this the correct way or is there any better way to do this?
The problem is that I have a test database where we have different set of data (Data in Dev and test are different and I would like to keep the data as it is in both the environments). If so, is it good to separate the DDL and DML in different script files when we take it from the Dev environment and apply them separately in each environment? The DML can be added manually as required; but bit confused if I am doing the right thing.
Thanks in advance.
So, there are actually two questions here. Data management and Flyway management.
In terms of data management, yes, that should be a separate thing. Data grows and grows. Trying to manage data, beyond simple lookup tables, from source control quickly becomes very problematic. Not to mention that you want different data in different environments. This also makes automating deployments much more difficult (branching would be your friend if you insist on going this route, one branch for each data set, then deploy appropriately).
You can implement Flyway on an existing project, yes. The key is establishing the baseline. You don't have to do all the steps you outlined above. Let's say you have an existing database. You have to get the script that defines that database. That single script should include all appropriate DDL (and, if you want, DML). Name it following the Flyway standards. Something like V1.0__Baseline.sql.
With that in place, all you must do is run:
flyway baseline
That will establish your existing code base as the start point. From there, you just have to create scripts following the naming standard: V1.1xxx V2.0xxx V53000.1xxx. And run
flyway migrate
To deploy appropriate changes.
The only caveat to this is that, as the documentation states, you must ensure that all your databases match this V1.0 that you're creating and marking as the baseline. Any deviation will cause errors as you introduce new changes and migrate them into place. As long as you've got matching baseline points, you should be able to proceed with different data in different environments with no issues.
This is my how-to instruction on integration flyway with prod DB: https://delicious-snipe-938.notion.site/How-to-integrate-Flyway-with-existing-MySQL-DB-in-Prod-PostgreSQL-is-similar-1eabafa8a0e844e88205c2f32513bbbe.
I have a visual studio project which contains a database project. I create an executable which performs a software update and part of that update is to update the database. Some of the stored procedures are dependent on a linked server existing which gets created as part of the executable too. The problem is that this functionality is optional and the linked server won't connect on some client machines. But the DACPAC fails because the linked server can't connect. I am using sqlpackage.exe to deploy the .dacpac file.
Is there some way that I can deploy either all or only some of the stored procedures? Or maybe I can set a flag to ignore linked server errors? Or maybe there is an alternative method to using sqlpackage/dacpac?
One option I thought of is to convert the stored procedures that contain the linked server to dynamic SQL.
Having the database in visual studio and therefore source control is important.
Yes!
This is fairly easy to do. You can see your database project in visual studio. I would recommend removing the stored procs that are problematic and merging those back in to master. Then I would take out a feature branch and point again to the DB you have the stored procs on and use the schema compare to get those back as well (even the ones that don't work well so that you don't lose them). Push the commit up to the feature branch repo. Then,now that you have the problematic stored procs in source control + the shippable version in master-- you can go ahead and thruough visual studio "publish" through the database project into the DBs you want the selected objects.
If you haven't checked in anything to master-- you can do the schema compare and select all objects except those that are problematic and update your database project. and merge that to master. If this doesn't make sense, please comment on this answer and I'm happy to give more detail.
Well, I came across this. Still working on to implement this to solve my problem. Might help your cause too.
Download the filter from:
https://agilesqlclub.codeplex.com/releases/view/610727 put the dll
into the same folder as sqlpackage.exe and add these command line
parameters to your deployment:
/p:AdditionalDeploymentContributors=AgileSqlClub.DeploymentFilterContributor
/p:AdditionalDeploymentContributorArguments="SqlPackageFilter=IgnoreSchema(BLAH)”
This will neither deploy, drop or alter anything in the BLAH schema.
More details on
https://the.agilesql.club/2015/01/howto-filter-dacpac-deployments/
I want to provide iCloud support for my wrapper around sqlite. Is not using coredata.
I wonder how enable iCloud for it. The database content is changed all the time (is for invoicing). Also, if is possible to have some kind of versioning will be great.
Exist any sample I can use to do this?
The short answer is no, you would need to use Core Data as you suspected. Apple has stated that sqlite is unsupported.
Edit: Check out the section on iCloud that's now in the iOS Application Programming Guide under Using iCloud in Conjunction with Databases
Using iCloud with a SQLite database is possible only if your app uses
Core Data to manage that database. Accessing live database files in
iCloud using the SQLite interfaces is not supported and will likely
corrupt your database. However, you can create a Core Data store based
on SQLite as long as you follow a few extra steps when setting up your
Core Data structures. You can also continue to use other types of Core
Data stores—that is, stores not based on SQLite—without any special
modifications.
You can't just put the SQLite database in the iCloud container, because it might get corrupted. (As you modify an SQLite DB, temporary files are created and renamed, so if the sync process starts copying those files, you'll get a corrupt database.)
If you don't want to move to Core Data, you can do what Core Data does: store your database in your document folder, and store a transaction log in the iCould container. Every time you change the database, you add those changes to a log file, so you can play them back and make equivalent changes on other devices.
This gets pretty complicated: aside from getting the log/reply logic right, you'll want to coalesce redundant changes and periodically collapse the log into a complete copy of the database.
You might have an easier time developing a solution if you can exploit knowledge of your application (Core Data has to solve the problem in the general case). For example, you could save invoices as separate files in the cloud container (text, Property List, XML, JSON, whatever), writing them out as the database changes and only importing ones if the system tells you they were created or changed.
In summary, your choice is either to migrate to Core Data or write a sync solution yourself. Which one is best depends on the particulars of your application.
I have an ASP.NET project. Naturally, through different releases and development branches, the db schema changes.
What are some ways to cleanly handle the schema changes in a friendly way so that I can easily switch between development branches?
I use SQL Server 2005, but general techniques probably work.
One good way to keep track of schema changes across multiple branches of a development project would be to follow a database refactoring process. Among other benefits, this sort of process incorporates the use of delta and migration scripts to apply schema changes to each environment (or branch in your case). The setup could look something like this:
main
src <-- ASP.NET project source
db <-- Database create scripts
delta <-- Database change scripts (SQL delta files)
branch
src
db <-- usually has the same contents as the copy in main branch
delta <-- only the changes necessary for this branch
Every time you need to change the database schema for a particular branch you create a SQL delta script that is used to apply the change. To make it easier I would suggest naming each script file to include create date and time to keep them in sequence. Example would be:
201102231435_addcolumn.sql
201102231447_addconstraint.sql
201103010845_anotherchange.sql
Add the delta files to source control in the branch where the schema change needs to be made. You should end up with each branch containing exactly what is necessary to change the corresponding database. Some details might need to be tweaked for your situation depending on things like your branching scheme and whether or not your database is preserved during your release process (as opposed to re-created).
Finally, to try and make these concepts simple, I would recommend a tool to help manage the process. My suggestion is to take a look at DBDeploy / DBDeploy.NET. I've been happily using it for years on all my projects.
We put our schema changes in source control in the same place the rest of the code being deployed for that version is.
The scenario is this. I have a SQL Server database online that I am demoing an application. During development, I have added extra fields, modified field types, changed keys and added some new tables locally.
What's the best way for me to update the online database with the new structure and not lose the data? The database is a SQL Server 2005 one.
Download a trial of Red Gate SQL Compare, compare your two servers and you are done. If you do this often, it is well worth the $400, or get one of their bundles for a better bang for the buck.
And I do not work for Red Gate, just a happy customer!
Write update scripts to modify your live database structure to the new structure, as well as inserting any data which is required.
You may find it necessary to use temporary tables to do this.
It's probably best if you test this process on a test environment, before running the scripts on the live environment.
Depending on what exactly you've done you may be able to get away with alter statements, though from the sounds of it (removing keys and whatnot) you're doing some heavy lifting that may make that a less-than-ideal solution. You should probably look into creating a maintenance plan or, better yet, a SQL Server Integration Services project in Visual Studio. You should be able to migrate the data in the existing database to a new one using those tools.
This probably isn't of huge help retrospectively, but I always script all structural DB changes to my development database and then using a version number to determine the current version of the DB I can run the required scripts on the live DB, hence bringing it back in line at the same time as the new code is uploaded.
This also works for any content changes, for instance if the change in the underlying structure has an effect on the conent stored you can also write scripts to migrate the data accordingly.
Make a copy of the existing database to copy from.
Make another copy and alter it to your new schema. save DDL for reuse.
Write queries that copy data from #1 to #2. Save the queries for reuse.
Check the results.
Repeat until done.