Force a push from the subscriber

I'm not too sure I follow this
You have continuous merge replication set up and you want
it to go much faster? Changing it to a user-initiated,
non-continuous one won't speed it up. If I have
misinterpreted the question, and you just require user-
initiated replication, then you could use windows
synchronization manager and have pull subscriptions, or
program the merge activeX control to initiate the pull.
HTH,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
Paul,
No, I don't want it to go faster. I want the best of both worlds; to use
continuous merge replication (which polls about every 30 secs), AND
on-demand merge replication (triggered by the user on the client workstation
app).
- Graham
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:1eae01c51f07$ff630a00$a501280a@.phx.gbl...
> I'm not too sure I follow this
> You have continuous merge replication set up and you want
> it to go much faster? Changing it to a user-initiated,
> non-continuous one won't speed it up. If I have
> misinterpreted the question, and you just require user-
> initiated replication, then you could use windows
> synchronization manager and have pull subscriptions, or
> program the merge activeX control to initiate the pull.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||I must be missing something
If there is continuous merge replication, what effect
would initiating the merge agent have? - it would give
the error message that another merge agent is running.
There again, what effect would you want it to have - if
it is running continuously, why (logically) would you
synchronize it on demand?
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Paul,
I know it sounds strange, but the main user of this app comes into the
office to synchronise his data with the corporate db, and then leaves. He is
impatient, and wants to initiate a merge himself. Because the merge is
transparent to him, there's no way for him to tell when the it has
completed.
I agree that he is *too* impatient, and if it's too hard, he'll just have to
live with it, but if we can give him the ability to initiate the merge
himself, why not?
- Graham
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:3a4f01c51fd3$65cafed0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
>I must be missing something
> If there is continuous merge replication, what effect
> would initiating the merge agent have? - it would give
> the error message that another merge agent is running.
> There again, what effect would you want it to have - if
> it is running continuously, why (logically) would you
> synchronize it on demand?
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||Graham,
this sounds fine, but iun your first post you mentioned that ' continuous
push merge' was being used. Continuous and on-demand are mutually exclusive,
which is why I was/am confused. If it is not continuous and user-initiated
synchroniozation is what you need, then windows synchronization manager or
the activex controls coded in a GUI will do the trick.
Rgds,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||OK, I understand now. I wasn't aware that they were mutually exclusive. I'll
leave it in continuous mode (he'll just have to live with it).
- Graham
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:uhTFaOKIFHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Graham,
> this sounds fine, but iun your first post you mentioned that ' continuous
> push merge' was being used. Continuous and on-demand are mutually
> exclusive, which is why I was/am confused. If it is not continuous and
> user-initiated synchroniozation is what you need, then windows
> synchronization manager or the activex controls coded in a GUI will do the
> trick.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Oh, forgive me. I rudely forgot to say "thanks".
Thanks Paul.
- Graham
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:uhTFaOKIFHA.3336@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Graham,
> this sounds fine, but iun your first post you mentioned that ' continuous
> push merge' was being used. Continuous and on-demand are mutually
> exclusive, which is why I was/am confused. If it is not continuous and
> user-initiated synchroniozation is what you need, then windows
> synchronization manager or the activex controls coded in a GUI will do the
> trick.
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>