 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Set identity to not for replication in T-SQL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/set-identity-to-not-for-replication/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/set-identity-to-not-for-replication/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 12:23:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: mrdenny</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/set-identity-to-not-for-replication/#comment-69433</link>
		<dc:creator>mrdenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-69433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Changing system tables is never recommended as if can have disastrous repercussions if not done correctly.

In SQL 2000 you&#039;ll probably want to recreate the table under a different name with the different options set, then move the data into the new table, then rename the tables, rebuild the indexes and add any foreign constraints.

There are hundreds of features which aren&#039;t included in SQL 2000 which have been included in SQL 2005 and SQL 2008.  As to why that one feature wasn&#039;t included in SQL 2000 I&#039;ve got no idea.  SQL 2000 was only the second version of SQL Server which included replication, so there weren&#039;t a lot of extra features added around maintaining it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Changing system tables is never recommended as if can have disastrous repercussions if not done correctly.</p>
<p>In SQL 2000 you&#8217;ll probably want to recreate the table under a different name with the different options set, then move the data into the new table, then rename the tables, rebuild the indexes and add any foreign constraints.</p>
<p>There are hundreds of features which aren&#8217;t included in SQL 2000 which have been included in SQL 2005 and SQL 2008.  As to why that one feature wasn&#8217;t included in SQL 2000 I&#8217;ve got no idea.  SQL 2000 was only the second version of SQL Server which included replication, so there weren&#8217;t a lot of extra features added around maintaining it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: db23</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/set-identity-to-not-for-replication/#comment-69398</link>
		<dc:creator>db23</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-69398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for the reply

The changing column identity field syntax works on SQL Server 2005 but when I run the same command in SQL Server 2000, it is returning Incorrect syntax near &#039;NOT&#039;.  

I have read that you can change the identity column in 2000 by alter the system tables, but I don&#039;t want to do this, as one of our DBA indicated that it not a good idea to change the system table and that is why they remove it in 2005.

Is there any other way beside alter the system tables and how safe is it to alter the system tables? Another option is to script out the database, make the changes to the script, recreate the database and import all the data to the created database.

Do you know why the NOT FOR REPLICATION isn&#039;t added to SQL Server 2000 by default in the first place? Does adding these option to database which will not be configure for replication affect their performance?

Thanks]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the reply</p>
<p>The changing column identity field syntax works on SQL Server 2005 but when I run the same command in SQL Server 2000, it is returning Incorrect syntax near &#8216;NOT&#8217;.  </p>
<p>I have read that you can change the identity column in 2000 by alter the system tables, but I don&#8217;t want to do this, as one of our DBA indicated that it not a good idea to change the system table and that is why they remove it in 2005.</p>
<p>Is there any other way beside alter the system tables and how safe is it to alter the system tables? Another option is to script out the database, make the changes to the script, recreate the database and import all the data to the created database.</p>
<p>Do you know why the NOT FOR REPLICATION isn&#8217;t added to SQL Server 2000 by default in the first place? Does adding these option to database which will not be configure for replication affect their performance?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: db23</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/set-identity-to-not-for-replication/#comment-69343</link>
		<dc:creator>db23</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-69343</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Columns which are set as identity field. 
create table(
 int id idenitity(1,1)
)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Columns which are set as identity field.<br />
create table(<br />
 int id idenitity(1,1)<br />
)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mrdenny</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/set-identity-to-not-for-replication/#comment-69336</link>
		<dc:creator>mrdenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-69336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What do you mean by change the identity column?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you mean by change the identity column?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 6/9 queries in 0.019 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 310/313 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-23 12:30:40 -->