Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 247519
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T21:15:57+00:00 2026-05-11T21:15:57+00:00

Environment: SQL Server 2005 SP2 (9.0.3077) Transactional Publications (Production and Beta) I have a

  • 0

Environment:
SQL Server 2005 SP2 (9.0.3077)
Transactional Publications (Production and Beta)

I have a situation where I have two different Replication Publications setup that use some of the same Articles. Each of these Publications feeds a subscriber on a different machine. One of these shared Articles is a table. At a regular time interval many of the records in this table become aged and no longer needed. At this time a stored procedure that deletes records is called.

To save on resources and improve latency times to the subscribers I have set the replicate property on this stored procedure to “Execution of the stored procedure” instead of the default “Stored procedure definition only”. This way when the stored procedure deletes 2,000,000+ records these don’t replicate down to the subscribers. Instead the execution of the stored procedure is replicated and the same replicated stored procedure on the subscribers is executed and it deletes the same 2,000,000+ rows.

The problem I’m having is with my second publication. I didn’t need this type of behavior so I left the article property on the stored procedure set to “Stored procedure definition only” and was expecting replication to remove the rows at the other subscriber but it wasn’t. The table at the subscriber just kept gaining records. So to fix it I set the Article Property to “Execution…” and called it good. Which is probably the best solution so beta matches production, but it still feels like a kludge as the publication properties should work independently of each other.

Question: Why does the “Execution of the stored procedure” article property take precedence and get applied to the other publication even though it is set to “Stored procedure definition only” in the other publication?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-11T21:15:58+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 9:15 pm

    We use replication extensively in our company as we have 38 warehouses in several countries all replicating back to our primary server in London.

    Firstly, your replication filters should use Views, even the simple ones. That way, if you need to adjust the filter (read WHERE clause), you just need to alter the view and your done. Otherwise you have to re-publish your data, and re-subscribe everyone which can be a real pain.

    You mentioned that you run the same delete on both subscriber and publisher to keep them in-sync. This sends shivers down my spine. Your far better off deleting them in one place and letting the server replicate out to the subscribers the changes made. Since SQL Server 2005, replication is very fast and efficient now. SQL 2000 was and is quite slow for replication. If your using SQL 2005/2008, just make sure your compatibility level (right click on db, properties, options) is set to 90 (2005) or 100 (2008). This switches sql server over to the fast and efficient replication methods.

    Another way is to not delete the data, but to keep it and filter it out using a where clause in the publication.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 244k
  • Answers 244k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer You could use something like Comet (AKA reverse AJAX) to… May 13, 2026 at 8:04 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer DoAskForLaneClear(LanePair.this); Since you can't use this (it will reference the… May 13, 2026 at 8:04 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Just my 2cents... When I built my baseclasses to have… May 13, 2026 at 8:04 am

Related Questions

I have a legacy VB6 application that was built using MSDE. As many client's
My environment: SQL Server 2005 for database and SQL Server 2005 Analysis Services. I
My dev environment has SQL Server 2008 installed. I have an asp.net 1.1 site
I'm in the unfortunate situation of developing an app using SQL Server 2005 in

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.