February 25, 2009 at 10:08 am
steve smith (2/25/2009)
My bad. It's a replication from the 'production' server to a 'reports' server, published twice a day. Which I believe means that the term 'snapshot replication' could be applied?
It does sound like snapshot replication. With snapshot replication, only items included in the publication are transferred, so if you want a new view transferring, you'll have to add it to the publication.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
February 26, 2009 at 12:36 pm
How were you checking to see that the views existed?
In my experience, with full backups, seeing this happen a couple of times in SQL 2000, it was Enterprise Manager not showing the objects existance. If I verified it with TSQL I found the objects WERE there.
The few times I have been told data didn't make it over I was unable to verify that was actually the case to a certainty, so I don't believe it ever happened.
Chris
Learning something new on every visit to SSC. Hoping to pass it on to someone else.
February 26, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Chris,
Good to know for the future. But, I believe that EM was telling me true, because after I followed the full flow of backup, transport, restore, thoroughly, I found the 'missing' view where it belonged. But I did nothing differently within the context of EM both before and after verification of the flow. So it's possible my restore job was funky, or something else hiccuped overnight prior to my looking at it.
Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 17 (of 17 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply