locked
Setting Synchronization Order RRS feed

  • Question

  • Given a synchronization scope of say 5 tables, is it possible to set the order in which the tables should be synchronized?

    This is useful for maintaining FK relationships which require that data is loaded in a particular order.

    Thanks.
    Rick G. Garibay MVP, Connected Systems
    Friday, July 10, 2009 4:59 AM

Answers

  • Hi Rick,
     Assuming you are using SQL Sync Provider, When provisioning  the order in which adapters for the table are added to the sql provider define the order in which tables will get synchronized.
    for e.g adding adapters in this order for following tables   table0, table1, table 2, table 3 will get synchronize in the same order.

    Thanks
    Jandeep
    jandeepc
    Monday, July 13, 2009 5:34 PM

All replies

  • Hi Rick,
     Assuming you are using SQL Sync Provider, When provisioning  the order in which adapters for the table are added to the sql provider define the order in which tables will get synchronized.
    for e.g adding adapters in this order for following tables   table0, table1, table 2, table 3 will get synchronize in the same order.

    Thanks
    Jandeep
    jandeepc
    Monday, July 13, 2009 5:34 PM
  • I thought the framework was supposed to take care of FK management if the tables were in the same SyncGroup. Do we really have to specify the order?

    Thanks
    Monday, July 13, 2009 7:58 PM
  • Hi -

    The framework is not an entity level sync technology so we do not explicitly handle FK management. Jandeep's answer on top would be the right way to specify order.

    Thanks
    Deepa
    Deepa ( Microsoft Sync Framework)
    Friday, July 17, 2009 12:59 AM
    Answerer
  • Thanks Jandeep, and sorry for the late acknowledgement.

    Thanks for the tip on provisioning order. The solution I am using (for now) is to scope the scopes as a 1:1 and use a business component to wrap the SyncOrchestrator, thereby controlling synchronization order.

    Provisioning is happening manually in my project because there are a couple of bugs in the provisioning script, namely the handling of IDENTITY INSERTs. No big deal, worked around that.

    That said, from a futures standpoint, it would be great to be able to pass in a dictionary of scope names and order to have more control over this.

    Thanks,

    Rick
    Rick
    Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:32 AM