Subject: Grouper Users - Open Discussion List
- From: "Roy, Nicholas S" <>
- To: Chris Hyzer <>, "" <>
- Subject: RE: Grouper and Microsoft SQL Server/DDL
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:06:33 -0600
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
Thanks Chris, I will give this DDL a try. I will also try to get our SQL
DBAs involved here to see if we can figure out a way around the index key
From: Chris Hyzer
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 2:27 AM
To: Roy, Nicholas S;
Subject: RE: Grouper and Microsoft SQL Server/DDL
We've discussed supporting sql server, and now is a good time to try it. :)
> like '||' for concatenation instead of '+',
I believe I fixed that
> ORDER BY in views,
Those weren't needed so I removed them
> and index keys that are larger than 900 bytes.
This one sounds very limiting... If you are using mssql, I put the name and
display name of indexed cols to 900 instead of 1024. Also, for mssql I don't
index audit or change log cols (will notice on UI screen to find audit logs).
> The first two are somewhat overcome-able as far as I can tell, but the
> last one is fairly tricky to fix and the only way I can think to make it
> happy would be to rewrite the indexes > with included columns.
I did that with one of them, but the others have only one col, so not sure
how they can be included, unless you have a way.
I tried to run the unit tests, and it made it to 300/1500, and it hung
(waiting on locked query). I tried to run queries against the DB, and they
hung. This is mssql express. Anyways, if anyone can help out with this,
that would be great. Otherwise, if it doesn't pass the unit tests, its hard
to say it is ok to use other than at your own risk... :)
Attached is my DDL, we can put the changes in 1.5.2
- Grouper and Microsoft SQL Server/DDL, Roy, Nicholas S, 02/24/2010
- RE: Grouper and Microsoft SQL Server/DDL, Chris Hyzer, 02/25/2010
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.