SQL Replication Question

[SQLNow]

If I have two tables that I want to synchronize via replication publish
subscriber model and they don't contain primary keys i.e. an ID field, but
there are three columns that make a unique key. The tables are HUGE so I
want to minimize down time.

Can replication still be done, either snapshot, transactional, or merge?
Again I don't want to create any more columns in the tables because of the
record volume.

Thanks

[Simon Hayes]

Re: SQL Replication Question

I don't know about the replication part of your question, but why not
simply add a composite primary key on the three columns? If that's what
your data model looks like, then the key should be there, or at least a
UNIQUE constraint, if you need to use an artificial key for some
reason.

For replication issues, you might get a better response in
microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.rep lication

Simon

[SQLNow]

Re: SQL Replication Question

Adding a primary key would be the best, but it is not an option.

The table volumes are huge and I was hoping that SQL Server replication
would manage all the uniqueness of the tables to be replicated. I was
reading that there may be away to do this type of replication.

"Simon Hayes" <sql@hayes.ch > wrote in message
news:1121065474 .050425.75340@g 47g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...[color=blue]
>I don't know about the replication part of your question, but why not
> simply add a composite primary key on the three columns? If that's what
> your data model looks like, then the key should be there, or at least a
> UNIQUE constraint, if you need to use an artificial key for some
> reason.
>
> For replication issues, you might get a better response in
> microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.rep lication
>
> Simon
>[/color]

[SQLNow]

Re: SQL Replication Question

microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.rep lication appears to not have any posts in the
newsgroup.

"Simon Hayes" <sql@hayes.ch > wrote in message
news:1121065474 .050425.75340@g 47g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...[color=blue]
>I don't know about the replication part of your question, but why not
> simply add a composite primary key on the three columns? If that's what
> your data model looks like, then the key should be there, or at least a
> UNIQUE constraint, if you need to use an artificial key for some
> reason.
>
> For replication issues, you might get a better response in
> microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.rep lication
>
> Simon
>[/color]

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: SQL Replication Question

SQLNow (youngbar@insig htbb.com) writes:[color=blue]
> Adding a primary key would be the best, but it is not an option.
>
> The table volumes are huge and I was hoping that SQL Server replication
> would manage all the uniqueness of the tables to be replicated. I was
> reading that there may be away to do this type of replication.[/color]

I don't know how their uniqueness is stated today, but I assume that
the index is created as unique?

It's possible that replication gets by with unique index, but I
would not be surprised if a PK or UNIQUE constraint is required.
[color=blue]
> microsoft.publi c.sqlserver.rep lication appears to not have any posts in
> the newsgroup.[/color]

It may be that your local newsserver does not carry this group for some
reason. I just checked msnews.microsof t.com, and there were several
posts from today.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp