Timeline for SQL Server - moving databases to an earlier version - options
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 22 at 10:10 | comment | added | fiveeuros | Thanks - have an email out to the vendor company to check and verify this, and to discuss options. | |
| Feb 20 at 23:45 | answer | added | Doug Deden | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 20 at 14:52 | comment | added | J.D. | "no, we won’t be able to touch the source database or it will void our warranty with the vendor." - Positive on this?...I've worked with quite a lot of 3rd party vendor databases and (surprisingly) they're ok with changes as long as they're only new objects being added and not any direct changes to their objects. That being said, if you really constrained to absolutely 0 changes on the source server, then all Replication options go out the window too since they create objects in the source server / database. | |
| Feb 20 at 14:06 | comment | added | fiveeuros | Source server - no, we won’t be able to touch the source database or it will void our warranty with the vendor. Lastly SQL Server 2016 - again, noted, and I know that there is a separate effort to upgrade them but that won’t be complete before my upgrade hits production. I guess that is relevant in that any solution put in place here will likely be comparatively short lived. | |
| Feb 20 at 14:06 | comment | added | fiveeuros | I can’t say whether or not any, all or none of the affected tables are used in reporting. It’s a bit of an unknown quantity as you can imagine after 10 years; there are a number of published and controlled reports that we can analyse with confidence; but there are also an unknown number of ad-hoc reports that will be harder to track down. It’s a bit of a mess, and honestly the rationalisation and consolidation of reporting feels to me like it should be a project in itself. Not something I want to tack on as part of the upgrade. | |
| Feb 20 at 13:58 | comment | added | fiveeuros | Agreed on the tables without primary keys. I've followed up with the vendor to check the new version but every time we've asked about the upgraded database, it's been pretty much 'as you were' and no changes from the older version. | |
| Feb 20 at 13:24 | comment | added | J.D. | "the vendor product has over 300 tables without primary keys" - That's pretty terrible, they probably should fix that (in fact, you should find out if they did fix that in this upgrade). In any case, do you guys use all 300 of those tables for reporting purposes? Are you allowed to create your own separate objects in the source server, such as Indexed Views? Also, FWIW, SQL Server 2016 has been out of mainstream support for a few years now, and will be completely unsupported in about 2 years, so you guys should probably look to upgrade those reporting servers soon. | |
| Feb 20 at 11:52 | history | asked | fiveeuros | CC BY-SA 4.0 |