keeping track of modification date of a row

timestamp type seems to be the design to keep tracking of the modification
date (at least it's convertible to datetime) of a row; but is there a better
way to keep track it with a datetime type? I hope to avoid doing the
conversion everytime I need to look at the data (many rows at a time.)
Creating trigger is obviously possible but I hope for something simpler.
thanks!
TIMESTAMP has absolutely nothing to do with date or time! Can you show how
you are converting it to a datetime value, and demonstrate a case where
TIMESTAMP is accurately tracking the last date/time a row was updated?
Use a LastUpdatedDate column and update it with a trigger or, if you control
access to the table via stored procedures, you can use the stored procedure
to include an update to that column whenever any other value in the row is
touched.
"Zester" <zeze@.nottospam.com> wrote in message
news:eteRVyfWIHA.5716@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> timestamp type seems to be the design to keep tracking of the modification
> date (at least it's convertible to datetime) of a row; but is there a
> better way to keep track it with a datetime type? I hope to avoid doing
> the conversion everytime I need to look at the data (many rows at a time.)
> Creating trigger is obviously possible but I hope for something simpler.
> thanks!
>
|||Hi Zester,
If you are working either with SQL Server 2000 or 2005, you have no other
chance than triggers.
But if you can wait until SQL Server 2008 arrives, things will be different.
You will have tracking features included on the server, along with two new
datatypes: DATE and TIME. (Separated at last!!!)
Hope this would be helpful. Please, rate this post. Thanks!
May the bytes be with you!!!
Pedro López-Belmonte Eraso
MCAD, MCT
"Zester" wrote:

> timestamp type seems to be the design to keep tracking of the modification
> date (at least it's convertible to datetime) of a row; but is there a better
> way to keep track it with a datetime type? I hope to avoid doing the
> conversion everytime I need to look at the data (many rows at a time.)
> Creating trigger is obviously possible but I hope for something simpler.
> thanks!
>
>

keeping track of modification date of a row

timestamp type seems to be the design to keep tracking of the modification
date (at least it's convertible to datetime) of a row; but is there a better
way to keep track it with a datetime type? I hope to avoid doing the
conversion everytime I need to look at the data (many rows at a time.)
Creating trigger is obviously possible but I hope for something simpler.
thanks!TIMESTAMP has absolutely nothing to do with date or time! Can you show how
you are converting it to a datetime value, and demonstrate a case where
TIMESTAMP is accurately tracking the last date/time a row was updated?
Use a LastUpdatedDate column and update it with a trigger or, if you control
access to the table via stored procedures, you can use the stored procedure
to include an update to that column whenever any other value in the row is
touched.
"Zester" <zeze@.nottospam.com> wrote in message
news:eteRVyfWIHA.5716@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> timestamp type seems to be the design to keep tracking of the modification
> date (at least it's convertible to datetime) of a row; but is there a
> better way to keep track it with a datetime type? I hope to avoid doing
> the conversion everytime I need to look at the data (many rows at a time.)
> Creating trigger is obviously possible but I hope for something simpler.
> thanks!
>|||Hi Zester,
If you are working either with SQL Server 2000 or 2005, you have no other
chance than triggers.
But if you can wait until SQL Server 2008 arrives, things will be different.
You will have tracking features included on the server, along with two new
datatypes: DATE and TIME. (Separated at last!!!)
Hope this would be helpful. Please, rate this post. Thanks!
--
May the bytes be with you!!!
Pedro López-Belmonte Eraso
MCAD, MCT
"Zester" wrote:
> timestamp type seems to be the design to keep tracking of the modification
> date (at least it's convertible to datetime) of a row; but is there a better
> way to keep track it with a datetime type? I hope to avoid doing the
> conversion everytime I need to look at the data (many rows at a time.)
> Creating trigger is obviously possible but I hope for something simpler.
> thanks!
>
>

Keeping the transaction log small during initialization

How do I keep the transaction log small during initialization of a
subscription. The size of the transaction gets to be at least four
times the size of the data and fills up the hard drive.
Is there a way to initialize the database without keeping the
transaction logs?
I can't seem to truncate and shrink during initialization either.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Michael Swart
There is no real way to do this, other than a no sync subscription, or to
kick everyone off your publication database while you generate the snapshot.
You might also want to run DBCC Opentran to see if there are any open
transactions which are causing your tlog to balloon.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a book on SQL Server replication?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Michael Swart" <mjswart@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:22f04e15.0408040512.115202ca@.posting.google.c om...
> How do I keep the transaction log small during initialization of a
> subscription. The size of the transaction gets to be at least four
> times the size of the data and fills up the hard drive.
> Is there a way to initialize the database without keeping the
> transaction logs?
> I can't seem to truncate and shrink during initialization either.
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Michael Swart