Does this make sense ?

We have one publication having all the tables, then another publication for
stored procs, yet another for views and one for indexed views. And all set
up for transactional replication. I understand the need for the tables
portion. Right now, the stored procs, views and indexed views are just to
have their schemas on the subscriber as a one time. I believe its an
overkill to have those set up as transactional replication right ? We could
maybe set them up as snapshot replication ... right ?
Thanks
Hassan,
for stored procedures and views and UDFs in many ways it doesn't make any
difference, however sp_addscriptexec can be useful in the case of incorrect
dependencies, and it is not available with snapshot replication. For this
reason I'd recommend you use transactional. NB be sure to select the option
to have an independant distribution agent, so problems synchronizing the
views publication won't block the tables one.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com/default.asp
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Other than Paul's excellent advise - keep in mind the sp_addscritpexec
only works for subscribers deployed through UNCs.
You may also need to run sp_refreshsubscriptions before re-running any
publications which contain procs, views, and functions which you have
modified. IIRC Paul pointed out to me that replication is not aware of
changes to procedures which it is publishing and you need to drop and
recreate these publications.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com