By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
443,918 Members | 2,040 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 443,918 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

SQL Replication Question

P: n/a
If I have two tables that I want to synchronize via replication publish
subscriber model and they don't contain primary keys i.e. an ID field, but
there are three columns that make a unique key. The tables are HUGE so I
want to minimize down time.

Can replication still be done, either snapshot, transactional, or merge?
Again I don't want to create any more columns in the tables because of the
record volume.

Thanks


Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
4 Replies


P: n/a
I don't know about the replication part of your question, but why not
simply add a composite primary key on the three columns? If that's what
your data model looks like, then the key should be there, or at least a
UNIQUE constraint, if you need to use an artificial key for some
reason.

For replication issues, you might get a better response in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication

Simon

Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
Adding a primary key would be the best, but it is not an option.

The table volumes are huge and I was hoping that SQL Server replication
would manage all the uniqueness of the tables to be replicated. I was
reading that there may be away to do this type of replication.

"Simon Hayes" <sq*@hayes.ch> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
I don't know about the replication part of your question, but why not
simply add a composite primary key on the three columns? If that's what
your data model looks like, then the key should be there, or at least a
UNIQUE constraint, if you need to use an artificial key for some
reason.

For replication issues, you might get a better response in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication

Simon

Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication appears to not have any posts in the
newsgroup.

"Simon Hayes" <sq*@hayes.ch> wrote in message
news:11*********************@g47g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
I don't know about the replication part of your question, but why not
simply add a composite primary key on the three columns? If that's what
your data model looks like, then the key should be there, or at least a
UNIQUE constraint, if you need to use an artificial key for some
reason.

For replication issues, you might get a better response in
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication

Simon

Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
SQLNow (yo******@insightbb.com) writes:
Adding a primary key would be the best, but it is not an option.

The table volumes are huge and I was hoping that SQL Server replication
would manage all the uniqueness of the tables to be replicated. I was
reading that there may be away to do this type of replication.
I don't know how their uniqueness is stated today, but I assume that
the index is created as unique?

It's possible that replication gets by with unique index, but I
would not be surprised if a PK or UNIQUE constraint is required.
microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication appears to not have any posts in
the newsgroup.


It may be that your local newsserver does not carry this group for some
reason. I just checked msnews.microsoft.com, and there were several
posts from today.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp
Jul 23 '05 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.