D
dbeavon
Guest
I'm looking for tips from other companies that have experiences with both "Pro2SQL" and "SQL DataServer". For an non-legacy application that is actively changing, I suspect that schema maintenance is a considerable effort where both of those products are concerned. Can someone share their experiences with these two technologies, especially if you are familiar with both? I'm especially interested in hearing about the effort involved in making ongoing schema changes. I don't know either of those technologies very well yet. I would love to hear some war stories from other customers before I start to dive in. My understanding is that "Pro2SQL" is built on "SQL DataServer" so the schema considerations should be identical. Is that right? Hopefully where Pro2SQL is concerned the propagation of the schema changes can be somewhat automated, and don't need to be as manual or complex as they seem based on the KB article that I had found (see PS***). At a high level I understand that the purpose of "SQL DataServer" is to actually host the primary copy of your data in SQL. Whereas Pro2SQL hosts your primary data in OE and replicates to SQL. But if the effort involved in schema maintenance is the same on both sides then I have to ask myself why we would ever bother duplicating our data (why not stick to "SQL DataServer" and avoid the extra layers of concerns that come with Pro2SQL*** ). ***I did have a number of these concerns when I started learning about Pro2SQL (beyond the schema maintenance aspects). Eg. replication isn't transactional/atomic whereby it would update target data in a single transaction, for all source data edited in a corresponding transaction. It doesn't guarantee that edits are performed in the same sequence in source and target. It is based on ROWID's. It involves resynchronization after dump/loads. Etc. But these concerns are NOT all related to the schema maintenance so they are a bit off-topic.... As near as I can tell, the Pro2SQL is sold as a less expensive solution, despite the fact that the OE components appear to be a superset of the "SQL DataServer" product. Perhaps OE customers would pick that one because of the cost factor alone? Insofar as schema maintenance goes, I believe the considerations are about the same. We would need to maintain SQL Server schema as well as OE "schema holder" metadata. Is this true? Thanks in advance, David Beavon PS. A KB for propagating SQL schema changes in Pro2SQL Progress KB - Pro2 - How to propagate source schema changes
Continue reading...
Continue reading...