SQL Server Performance

Simple Question

Discussion in 'Performance Tuning for SQL Server Replication' started by photura, Jul 12, 2006.

  1. photura New Member

    Hi all:

    We've had the FKs in the majority of the tables lose their FKs somehow. I have to remove the tables from replication in order to alter the tables in order to add the FKs. When I add the article back into the publication, I don't want replication to re-sync the article.

    So, I wanted a couple more brainstorm a minute.

    If I add the article back using EM and select "keep the existing table unchanged" , this should accomplish the goal of not resyncing the entire table, correct?

    I just wanted to double-verify with another DBA because these are large tables and I can't affort to have replication resync them all.

    Thanks!
  2. photura New Member

    Actually, it looks like if I use sp_addsubscription with sync_type=none after adding the article back to the publication then it shouldn't try to resync all of the data and schema.

    Correct?

    Thanks.



    quote:Originally posted by photura

    Hi all:

    We've had the FKs in the majority of the tables lose their FKs somehow. I have to remove the tables from replication in order to alter the tables in order to add the FKs. When I add the article back into the publication, I don't want replication to re-sync the article.

    So, I wanted a couple more brainstorm a minute.

    If I add the article back using EM and select "keep the existing table unchanged" , this should accomplish the goal of not resyncing the entire table, correct?

    I just wanted to double-verify with another DBA because these are large tables and I can't affort to have replication resync them all.

    Thanks!

Share This Page