Standardizing tables between test and production databases

RLOMASKY

Hi,

I'm using an external process to populate one of the tables in my Aware dataset. In other words, I made a business object for it, and then am inserting into the table from an external process.

It's frustrating because the actual table name is different in the test database than in the production one, because of the prefix of BASTESTDOMAIN. Is there any way to make the test tables have the same names? I'm fine switching the schema name, but changing all of the queries is strange.

Thanks,
Rachel

aware_support

No, that's the way it is at the moment. You have to live with the prefix.

johntalbott

It's a hack ... but assuming you are using SQL Server, you could create SQL Views as an abstraction from the actual tables in both databases. The views can be named the same in both db's. Your query can reference the views to do the inserts.

hpl123

1+ for better ways of using production data in testing (not sure this was what the original post was about but is related).

BLOMASKY

Yes, Just like when we create a Business Space and we can check that the data is in its OWN DB. It should not be too hard to have the same option for the test DB for that Business Space.V

My application uses a LOT of Stored procedures and all of my reports are written in Jasper. So when I go from Testing to production, there is a LOT of work required to change all the names.

Using views limits my indexing options and does create a performance hit when working with medium size (500K + rows) tables.

Bruce

johntalbott

I agree. I would much prefer if each AwareIM application had an independent connection string and was abstracted from the database and database objects.

In the meantime ... a better SQL Server abstraction approach than Views is to create a Synonym for each of the tables in BASDBTEST to match the table names in production. It's much simpler and because the synonym is referencing the real table. All of your table indexes operate as normal, and there should be no performance impact. At least not enough to matter.

Example:

CREATE SYNONYM ITX_CUSTOMER
FOR BASTESTDOMAINITX_CUSTOMER;

CREATE SYNONYM ITX_ORDER
FOR BASTESTDOMAINITX_ORDER;

Select *
From ITX_CUSTOMER IC Inner Join
ITX_ORDER O ON O.Client_RID = IC.ID

johntalbott

RLOMASKY wrote
I'm fine switching the schema name, but changing all of the queries is strange.

Synonyms can be created for the Server on down to the Table level .. so I believe you should be able to eliminate the need to change anything.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177544.aspx