|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 04/19/07 22:02
Anthony Paul (anthonypaulo@gmail.com) writes:
> I would *love* to have a full replication going and not have to worry
> about the added complexity of creating dynamic filters or triggers,
> but the powers that be simply do not consider it an option. Since I'm
> not the one that makes the decisions, I can only go by whatever
> options are available. They want ONLY a subset of data to be captured,
> nothing more. That would be fine with me if the filter was static (ie.
> not subject to change every time a new report is requested) but given
> the requirements I am in the same camp as you that a full replication
> would be best.
From my meager experience of replication, it seems clear that the database
has to be really huge - several terabytes - to make a dynamic filtering
defensible from a cost perspective. It would be difficult to develop,
difficult to maintain and manage.
The only serious option I see to full replication is a static subset.
That is define what will be supported in replication V1. If a new reqiure-
ment that is not covered, it would have to wait to V2. The idea would
of course to only strip really big stuff with low proability to be included.
And this is what you should tell the powers that be: replicating the entire
database will be far less expensive than changing what is replicated
dynamically.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|