Unsupported Screen Size: The viewport size is too small for the theme to render properly.

Synching Differently Named Tables

forums › forums › SQLyog › Sync tools, Migration, Scheduled Backup and Notifications › Synching Differently Named Tables

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • July 17, 2007 at 1:51 pm #10447
      MikeAFL
      Member

      Is it possible to do a one way synch between tables with identical structures but different names?

    • July 17, 2007 at 2:35 pm #24534
      peterlaursen
      Participant

      The short answer is NO!

      The more extensive answer is that after (probably) 6-8 weeks we will have completed what we have started. Only after that we will plan for the next period to come!

      Can you explain why this is important for you?

    • July 17, 2007 at 4:34 pm #24535
      MikeAFL
      Member

      I must admit, I don't understand your more extensive answer at all- sounds kind of existential :huh:

      Here's why I want to do it:

      We are setting up a db just for reporting. I'm using sja (excellent tool- just wish I had docs for the xml tags so I could roll my own instead relying on the wizard) to update the reporting db with production data, which is coming from multiple db's. Unfortunately, the schema that I inherited here includes identically named tables in different db's. I duplicated those tables in the reporting db, but with different names. So I have db1.the_table->dbreports.db1_the_table, db2.the_table->dbreports.db2_the_table, etc.

      I was hoping to use sja to synch dbreports.db1_the_table to db1.the_table, and so on, but I guess I can't. Oh well.

      peterlaursen wrote on Jul 17 2007, 02:35 PM:
      The short answer is NO!

      The more extensive answer is that after (probably) 6-8 weeks we will have completed what we have started. Only after that we will plan for the next period to come!

      Can you explain why this is important for you?

    • July 17, 2007 at 5:20 pm #24536
      peterlaursen
      Participant

      What it tried to say was that we do plan an 'overhaul' data synchronisation, including additon of more features. However we are fully 'booked' for the next about 2 months.

      So only after those weeks we will plan for the future. And only after that we can tell if this will be included in 'next step' for us.

      This is not a new request. I think a 'prefix-substition' mechanism will do for your too so that 'remote_mytables' can be synced with 'local_mytables'? A completely random mapping of soruce and target tables would easily become very messy!

      The request for a formal XML-reference for SJA is not new not either. I agree we should have such – and it be be useful for us internally as well. We hope to be able to find a 'documentationist' who is also a 'code-reader' very soon.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.