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 9083695
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 16, 20262026-06-16T20:50:03+00:00 2026-06-16T20:50:03+00:00

I have to work with a database which keeps a track of instances of

  • 0

I have to work with a database which keeps a track of instances of certain events on a network. I want to be able to keep my own copy of those on another database elsewhere.

The issue I have is keeping in sync with updates. If a record changes on database A I want to then update database B with the changes. Simple enough but database A doesn’t have any form of modified timestamp field, and I cannot change the database at all (not even to add triggers). I am writing a C# application which will be doing the syncronisation on an hourly basis. (This is acceptable to my requirements, data doesn’t have to be fresh all of the time).

My question is this:

If I use BINARY_CHECKSUM, I can presumably keep a list elsewhere (memory/XML/whatever) of the expected value, then periodically check to see if it is different. If it is different I can then sync the row manually in code.

Is this a good idea? Is there a large overhead associated with BINARY_CHECKSUM? Is there a better way to detect changes to a row that I cannot change?

EDIT: I am fully aware of SQL replication, however I should have mentioned that the two databases are not on the same network, and interfacing between them is done via web services accessed by C#.

Cheers,

  • 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
    2026-06-16T20:50:04+00:00Added an answer on June 16, 2026 at 8:50 pm

    Posted this in a comment to Jobo’s answer:

    declare @t table (
        ColA int not null,
        ColB int not null,
        ID int IDENTITY(1,1) not null primary key
    )
    insert into @t values (1,0)
    select BINARY_CHECKSUM(*) from @t
    
    update @t set ColA = 0,ColB = 16 where ID = 1
    select BINARY_CHECKSUM(*) from @t
    

    Result:

    -----------
    257
    
    -----------
    257
    

    So no, I wouldn’t recommend BINARY_CHECKSUM as a means to keep databases in sync.

    Remember that any form of hashing is a good means to determine that two inputs are definitely different (if the result of the hash is different), but if the results are the same, you usually have to check all of the specific values to determine if the inputs are really the same or just have the same hash value.

    The exception is if you’re using a balanced hash function of sufficient length that collisions are so unlikely that you won’t see one in your lifetime. int, at 32 bits, is not long enough.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have to work on a database in which there are many stored-procedures &
I work in field robotics and we have a central server keeps track of
I have a shopping cart in which I have to keep track of stock,
I am currently working on a project in which I have to keep track
I have an update database operation, that has an activity, which keeps updating the
I am using functions to work with database.. Now the way i have defined
Here's the situation. Due to the design of the database I have to work
I have to use oracle database in android. I have tried to work as
We have a web application talking to a Postgres SQL database at work -
I work with an OO database abstraction layer that I wrote. I have parameters

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.