Hmm.. This is unfortunate. Previously indexation, referential integrity etc was not enforced by the framework -- you needed to optimize the database as part of a FarCry install. That combined with the earlier ORM model not having transactions, leads to the possibility of duplicates in tables that should not have duplicates.
6.1 replaced the database gateways; these are much more robust and enforce indices and so on. You will need to deduce these tables manually or you will run into trouble. GB On Wednesday, April 3, 2013, Might Aswell wrote: > Thanks Jason, > > I seem to be having issues cleaning up COAPI after this upgrade, > particilarly on refcats and refobjects as I have duplicate values > > for example, trying to deploy changes for refcats.. > > [Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]The CREATE UNIQUE INDEX > statement terminated because a duplicate key was found for the object name > 'dbo.refCategories' and the index name 'PK__refCategories__59C61FAD'. The > duplicate key value is (1A31242A-4636-11DE-BF9A005056B02320, > FDAAFF10-C25E-11DE-A383005056B02320). > > refobjects > > [Macromedia][SQLServer JDBC Driver][SQLServer]The CREATE UNIQUE INDEX > statement terminated because a duplicate key was found for the object name > 'dbo.refObjects' and the index name 'PK__refObjects__5BAE681F'. The > duplicate key value is (05BC5C9F-5056-B03B-BAE2CF5A04773B7F). > > then for nestedtreeobjects... nleft and right wont repair... > > Failed to repair 'nested_tree_objects.nleft' column ---- the object > 'CK__nested_tree_obje__67FE6514' is dependent on column 'nleft'. ---- ALTER > TABLE ALTER COLUMN nleft failed because one or more objects access this > column. > > > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1:15:28 PM UTC-7, Jason Barnes wrote: >> >> It's one primary key made up of two properties which is valid. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 03/04/2013, at 6:16 AM, Might Aswell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> <cfcomponent displayname="Category References" hint="Category-Object >> associations" extends="schema" output="false"> >> <cfproperty name="objectid" type="uuid" dbNullable="false" >> dbPrimaryKey="true" /> >> <cfproperty name="categoryid" type="uuid" dbNullable="false" >> dbPrimaryKey="true" /> >> </cfcomponent> >> >> looking at refCategories.cfc... Is is legit to have 2 primary keys in a >> table? >> >> >> On Monday, April 1, 2013 4:37:57 PM UTC-7, Blair McK wrote: >> >> Can you try "mssql2005" as the dbtype? I don't remember what the >> differences where that required a separate db gateway, but this issue may >> be related. >> >> Blair >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Might Aswell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> MSSQL 2005 - Collation: SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 5:26:20 PM UTC-7, Jason Barnes wrote: >> >> Can you paste the db collation >> >> On 27 March 2013 11:21, Might Aswell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm using MSSQL2K5 I dont believe any case sensitive settings have been >> set.. >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:17:47 PM UTC-7, Blair McK wrote: >> >> Jason gave me poke to take a look at the dumps. The second dump you sent >> (tablemetadata) is the struct that FarCry compares with the DB as it is. >> You've mentioned refCategories, nested_tree_objects, and dmHTML - all three >> have an "objectid" property in their array of fields, and FarCry should >> only suggest dropping a field if it ISN'T in that struct and IS in the >> database. I think we can firmly rule out memory corruption / ColdFusion >> weirdness. >> >> What DB are you using? Is it possible you have case-sensitivity enabled? >> - that has caused problems for us in past. >> >> Blair >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Might Aswell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, Jason Barnes wrote: >> >> Not sure if my previous post worked but cfdump the following two scopes >> for debugging and attach as txt files to this thread: >> >> application.fc.lib.db.**tablemet******adata >> >> application.stCoapi["dmHTML"] >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:50:51 AM UTC+11, Might Aswell wrote: >> >> Hi all.. just a quick ? for anyone that might know... just upgraded from >> 6-0-15 to 6.2.7 and see a lot of schema changes.. I notice objectid is to >> be dropped in many tables.. should I be worried about this.. seems like I >> use objectID in a lot of places... >> >> -- >> You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google >> group. >> To post, email: [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, email: farcry-de >> >> -- > You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google > group. > To post, email: [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > To unsubscribe, email: > [email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'farcry-dev%[email protected]');> > For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev > -------------------------------- > Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "farcry-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'farcry-dev%[email protected]');>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message cos you are subscribed to "farcry-dev" Google group. To post, email: [email protected] To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] For more options: http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev -------------------------------- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/farcry --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
