Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- From: "Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti [MSFT]" <laxmi.online@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:21:01 +0530
Hey space_cowboy,
As you rightly figured out that we do rebuild indexes during full
compaction (of course, we do other activities as well). But this
rebuiliding is what we do in v3.1 on NLS version mismatch. So, I think it
is
a good and right idea to have the database compacted before using on the
platform where the database is copied to.
I did not understand that VistaDB part though!. I guess you are using
both Vista DB and SQL CE for different needs. This forum is just for SQL
Server Compact (or SQL CE) and hence I can not
answer anything related to Vista DB.
Repair operation does the similar set of operations on the destination
database as that of Compact operation. However, since Repair is generally
called when database is corrupt, it would be doing
many checks on source database as it would be doubting almost all :(.
Theoritically, Repair would be slower when compared to Compact. Be aware of
that fact, and chose. If you are sure that you
can live with that small perf gap, then I think you are good to go.
Thanks,
Laxmi
"space_cowboy" <spacecowboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B791A508-2F95-45EB-9B0A-96CFC783408E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Laxmi,
I came up with an idea today that would possible address my inter-op
issues
between 3.0 drivers in the device(ce 5.0) and 3.1 driver on the
desktop(vista/xp/7). The SDF has always been kept at 3.1 (3.0.3600.0
build)
because we were never previously doing anything to change the DB on the
device(no compacting/repairing). The desktop always does compacting. All
my
tests so far pose this as a favorable solution. I want to know if you see
any
flaws in this solution. Since I have many desktop apps and devices out
there
in the field, I am trying to not have to upgrade neither the desktop nor
the
device to 3.1 or 3.5 drivers . I would like to leave the architecture as
is.
So my plan is to just programmatically compact the DB's in 3.0 device when
they first come from the desktop, and this will rebuild the indexes, which
is
where most of my probs were coming from (the device perceiving the Vista
DB's
to be corrupt).
2nd question is do you know if Repair operation does index-rebuilding just
like Compact operation? It appeared so from my testing, but I wasnt sure.
The
thing I like about possibly doing repair is that it will not change the DB
itself into a 3.0 db.
-Thanks
"Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti [MSFT]" wrote:
Thanks for the reply. As far as I am aware, COM and OLE are the main
dependencies for device platform. For desktop, you need to be careful
about
x64 story and ErikEJ blog post (which the blog post points to).
Thanks,
Laxmi
"space_cowboy" <spacecowboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:06EE8F66-C191-4D80-ADA0-DF4AE5B1BA0F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Laxmi,
I know you have addressed the "cant pinkvoke sqlceme30.dll" issue
pretty
in-depth. Thank you again. When I removed the "sql mobile and sql
mobile
.net
data provider" catalog items in my platform builder, built a new CE
image
with no SQL componnets in it, and tried just coying the 3.1 dll's to
the
application directory, I was getting those pinvoke errors on
sqlceme30.dll
from sysem.data,sqlsrvercer.dll. This message was popping up eventhough
the
dll sqlceme30.dll was sitting right there in the app directory. I
found
out
that this message went away and everything was working fine once I
added
the
"cocreateguid functionality for ole32" catalog item which was taken
away
once I removed the 3.0 catalog components, because it is one of the
dependencies. I had the COM catalog item, but not that other one. I had
the
full blown COM catalog item, but not that paricular associated item.
Are
you
aware of any other core depndencies that the 3.1 dll's have? Or if I am
opening the connection to the db and reading/writing to it
successfully, I
can ASSume that I have all the necessary catalog items?
"Laxmi Narsimha Rao Oruganti [MSFT]" wrote:
Hey space_cowboy,
Did you read this blog post:
http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlservercompact/archive/2009/04/01/after-moving-the-database-from-one-platform-to-other-the-first-sqlceconnection-open-takes-more-time.aspx
Basically SQL CE interop between desktop and device started only
with
version v3.1 and *not* v3.0.
Windows XP and Windows CE give same Sort Key (or have same NLS
Version)
so indexes are valid across platforms. With Windows Vista (don't know
about
Win 7), index data is not valid any more across platform and there
is
a
need to rebuild the indexes. Now this index rebuilding is available
only
from v3.1 onwards.
Thanks,
Laxmi
"space_cowboy" <spacecowboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:2D306C28-A6B3-4CB6-A435-1471F7E952B2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will post the final ourcome of this adventure once I get to the
bottom
of
it with MS.
"Ginny Caughey MVP" wrote:
I don't actually know why the registry entries are there. I also
privately
deploy SqlCe DLLs for a couple of desktop apps that use SqlCe and
never
had
any issues, and I have customers running a mix of Xp and Vista as
well
as
various server versions. (One app runs on servers.)
One thing that has simplified life for me is always using the most
current
version of SqlCe on desktop and device, so I don't think you should
dismiss
that approach unless you've tested it yourself. Hopefully your
users
won't
be seeing a lot of error messages, and you can programmatically
upgrade a
database to 3.5 if you need to. Besides, the newest versions always
have
the
most bug fixes. I thought it was a great idea when Windows Mobile
first
started including SqlCe in ROM, but now I find the version I want
to
use
for
my app is always a newer one than whatever is in ROM, no matter how
recent
the devices are.
Sorry I can't help with Platform Builder.
--
Ginny Caughey
Device Application Development MVP
"space_cowboy" <spacecowboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:3D56FBB1-4C9B-406D-A8AD-4BC11AE3F80F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks Ginny,
I am not meaning to put you on the spot. I shipped out my CE
products
with
3.0 dll's, and my desktop App that manipulates the sdfs consumed
by
the
CE
device uses 3.1 dlls. All was fine as long as my desktop app was
running
on
XP. Well recently the desktop app started moving to newer OS's
(vista
and
7)
by the users. Once the files were modified by the newer os's and
copied
to
the CE device, they are somewhat perceived as corrupted by the CE
device.
Currently I have a support case going with MS where they are
trying
to
address the issue, but putting 3.1 engine(dll's) on the device
appears
to
fix
the inter-op or cross-platform issues.
I am not ready to make the 3.5 jump (wihtout being asked
questions
to
death
by the users about error messages.) So putting the 3.1 engine on
the
device
seems to be the least intrusive option. Still not sure if my
architecture
was
flawed to begin with (mixing the 2 revs of dlls across the
desktop
.net
app
and the CE device .net app.) Experience is definitely showing
this
to
be
the
case. But I wish there was more concrete docs to have veered me
off
this
course right off the bat. Maybe someone else can answer the
platform
builder
issue.
I noticed that if one follows the private-deploy doc for the
desktop
as
described in
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb219481(SQL.90).aspx
it not only copies the DLL's to the install dir, but also makes
reg
entries
for the various unamanged dlls, which just copying the files as
you
have
suggested will of course not do. Any idea if there is any value
to
those
reg
entries?
"Ginny Caughey MVP" wrote:
I haven't worked with Platform Builder, so I don't really know.
But
I
have a
lot of experience with trial and error in general. ;-) If what
you're
attempting to do isn't documented somewhere and somebody else
hasn't
done
it...
--
Ginny Caughey
Device Application Development MVP
"space_cowboy" <spacecowboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:C6344AF4-5153-4B55-9201-F418324B41D0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I also found that in Platform builder when I removed "sql
mobile"
and
"sql
mobile .net 2.0 data provider" catalog items, that took away
at
least
on
dependent catalog item that was needed for the privately
deployed
3.1
dll's
to work properly. in particular "cocreateguid functionality
for
ole32."
Without this catalog item, the privately deployed dlls, in
particular
System.data.sqlserverce.dll kept throwing "cant pinvoke
sqlceme30.dll
exception". Are there any other depedencies that you are aware
of
in
my
image
as far as sqlserver that my architecture is not barfing on
now,
but
may
later.
"space_cowboy" wrote:
Ginny,
Thanks for your reply.
I guess what I am concerned about is that the cabs were
registering
some
of
the unmanaged dlls, without which some of the cocreate calls
from
within
the
unmanaged dlls could fail. This I can not verify, because the
source
for
SQL
dll's unlike the OS code is unavailable.
"Ginny Caughey MVP" wrote:
space_cowboy,
Yes all you have to do is copy the DLLs, and your app may
not
even
need
all
8 of them. I privately deploy my SqlCe DLLs with my apps,
but
I
use
a
single
cab containing my app along with the SqlCe DLLs to do it as
I
find
that
more
convenient than deploying a bunch of separate files.
--
Ginny Caughey
Device Application Development MVP
"space_cowboy" <space_cowboy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
in
message
news:4A66ABF8-5209-4CB3-855F-0319F599FD9C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,
Since there is no catalog item in "platform builder for
windows
ce
5.0"
for
sql compact 3.1, I would like to just copy the necessary
DLL's
to
my
application folder and run from there. I would also like
to
stay
away
from
installing the provided cabs. My question is will it be
enough
to
copy the
8
dll's to my application directory? Or are there more
things
being
done by
the
cab (like registry mods) that I should be cautious about.
In
a
basic
test
my
installation works. That is, my application can create a
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- From: space_cowboy
- Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- References:
- Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- From: space_cowboy
- Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- Prev by Date: Problem with SQLServerCE
- Next by Date: Re: Problem with SQLServerCE
- Previous by thread: Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- Next by thread: Re: private Deploy of SQL CE 3.1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
