Synonyms Tips

On my new job I faced a situation where archived tables were created in the production database and now there was a requirement to move them as the database was growing. These archival tables were being used by several jobs and also in the application code. Moving them was demanding and also a very complicated process. I wanted to find a way to minimize the amount of work that the development team had to do, since their time was limited too. Based on the needs and the limited time I was not sure what was the best option.

Changing the name of an table once an application has been deployed has traditionally been a difficult task in SQL Server 2000. The typical solution in SQL Server 2000 for referencing a different object was to use a View. A second option was to use the sp_rename system stored procedure to rename objects as needed. Unfortunately, this limits the capabilities of referencing other objects. The need to be able to reference another object can become critical during system migrations, application testing, data corruption, etc. Does SQL Server 2005 handle this in a more elegant manner and support more than just tables?

I have an ETL process where the source and staging databases are on the same SQL Server instance. Over time many stored procedures have been deployed to the staging database and these stored procedures access tables in the source database by using the three part name; i.e. [databasename].[schema].[tablename]. We are ready to move the staging database to a new server. We want to update the stored procedures in staging so that they can access the tables in the source database whether the source database is on the same or a different SQL Server instance. In other words we want to make a single change to the stored procedures that will allow them to work regardless of where the source database is deployed. Do you have any ideas on how to

Changing the name of an table once an application has been deployed has traditionally been a difficult task in SQL Server 2000. The typical solution in SQL Server 2000 for referencing a different object was to use a View. A second option was to use the sp_rename system stored procedure to rename objects as needed. Unfortunately, this limits the capabilities of referencing other objects. The need to be able to reference another object can become critical during system migrations, application testing, data corruption, etc. Does SQL Server 2005 handle this in a more elegant manner and support more than just tables?

On my new job I faced a situation where archived tables were created in the production database and now there was a requirement to move them as the database was growing. These archival tables were being used by several jobs and also in the application code. Moving them was demanding and also a very complicated process. I wanted to find a way to minimize the amount of work that the development team had to do, since their time was limited too. Based on the needs and the limited time I was not sure what was the best option.

I have an ETL process where the source and staging databases are on the same SQL Server instance. Over time many stored procedures have been deployed to the staging database and these stored procedures access tables in the source database by using the three part name; i.e. [databasename].[schema].[tablename]. We are ready to move the staging database to a new server. We want to update the stored procedures in staging so that they can access the tables in the source database whether the source database is on the same or a different SQL Server instance. In other words we want to make a single change to the stored procedures that will allow them to work regardless of where the source database is deployed. Do you have any ideas on how to

I have an ETL process where the source and staging databases are on the same SQL Server instance. Over time many stored procedures have been deployed to the staging database and these stored procedures access tables in the source database by using the three part name; i.e. [databasename].[schema].[tablename]. We are ready to move the staging database to a new server. We want to update the stored procedures in staging so that they can access the tables in the source database whether the source database is on the same or a different SQL Server instance. In other words we want to make a single change to the stored procedures that will allow them to work regardless of where the source database is deployed. Do you have any ideas on how to

On my new job I faced a situation where archived tables were created in the production database and now there was a requirement to move them as the database was growing. These archival tables were being used by several jobs and also in the application code. Moving them was demanding and also a very complicated process. I wanted to find a way to minimize the amount of work that the development team had to do, since their time was limited too. Based on the needs and the limited time I was not sure what was the best option.

Changing the name of an table once an application has been deployed has traditionally been a difficult task in SQL Server 2000. The typical solution in SQL Server 2000 for referencing a different object was to use a View. A second option was to use the sp_rename system stored procedure to rename objects as needed. Unfortunately, this limits the capabilities of referencing other objects. The need to be able to reference another object can become critical during system migrations, application testing, data corruption, etc. Does SQL Server 2005 handle this in a more elegant manner and support more than just tables?