InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 04:40:36 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxeveryone does this to some extent in their productsthey make a list of features that they think companies will pay extra for and slap an Enterprise Edition label on it. In MS Exchange they did this by limiting the database on the standard edition to 16GB.it's kind of like our progressive tax systemThu, 09 Jul 2009 07:02:08 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxeveryone does this to some extent in their productsthey make a list of features that they think companies will pay extra for and slap an Enterprise Edition label on it. In MS Exchange they did this by limiting the database on the standard edition to 16GB.it's kind of like our progressive tax systemThu, 09 Jul 2009 07:01:56 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspx[quote][b]David McKinney (7/9/2009)[/b][hr]It's early in the morning (pre-coffee) but where do you construct the xml?[/quote]XML is constructed in application framework. Our application architects made object's property as auditable and, if checked, XML constracted by application and passed as parameter to a stored procedure. It guaranteed that each XML is in required standard.Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:31:18 GMTLP-181697http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxSorry didn't realise they had make the an enterprise only solution... I just can't understand Microsoft reasoning behind doing things like this.Why spend loads of time developing really good features that soo few customers could use (by paying for enterprise) , and then even fewer actually use. Had this conversation with Microsoft technical people in the past (who don't make these decisions) but there are of the same opinion - why ? Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:47:08 GMTMichael Whiteleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxSorry didn't realise they had made that an enterprise only solution... I just can't understand Microsoft's reasoning behind doing things like this.Why spend loads of time developing really good features that soo few customers could use (by paying for enterprise) , and then even fewer actually use. Had this conversation with Microsoft technical people in the past (who don't make these decisions) but there are of the same opinion - why ? Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:46:25 GMTMichael Whiteleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxIt's early in the morning (pre-coffee) but where do you construct the xml?Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:17:40 GMTDavid McKinneyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspx[quote][b]SQL Noob (7/8/2009)[/b][hr]how is this different than the standard audit tables that record changes?[/quote]a) it is allowed to gather additional data via XML b) it is extended to the way that you can record only row changes instead of complete changes (may be for differential load)c) It shows you not only the audit but how translate audit into something useful, for example to find which products are changed for differential load while you don't need to know exact changes. At least those points in addition to my previous article where one of the point is the use of ROW_ID instead of complex primary key values.Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:59:38 GMTLeo Peysakhovichhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspx[quote][b]SQL Noob (7/8/2009)[/b][hr]how is this different than the standard audit tables that record changes?[/quote]a) it is allowed to gather additional data via XML b) it is extended to the way that you can record only row changes instead of complete changes (may be for differential load)c) It shows you not only the audit but how translate audit into something useful, for example to find which products are changed for differential load while you don't need to know exact changes. At least those points in addition to my previous article where one of the point is the use of ROW_ID instead of complex primary key values.Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:58:43 GMTLeo Peysakhovichhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspx[quote][b]SQL Noob (7/8/2009)[/b][hr]how is this different than the standard audit tables that record changes?[/quote]a) it is allowed to gather additional data via XML b) it is extended to the way that you can record only row changes instead of complete changes (may be for differential load)c) It shows you not only the audit but how translate audit into something useful, for example to find which products are changed for differential load while you don't need to know exact changes. At least those points in addition to my previous article where one of the point is the use of ROW_ID instead of complex primary key values.Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:58:24 GMTLeo Peysakhovichhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxhow is this different than the standard audit tables that record changes?Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:00:52 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspx[quote][b]Michael Whiteley (7/8/2009)[/b][hr]If only using SQL 2008 I would use Change Data Capture it does it all for you. [/quote]Unfortunately, Change data capture is available only on the Enterprise, Developer, and Evaluation editions of SQL Server. E.g. if company has 4-5 production servers with 4 processors each the price between Standard and Enterprise edition is prohibit to use this feature.Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:37:11 GMTLP-181697http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxIf only using SQL 2008 I would use Change Data Capture it does it all for you. Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:35:59 GMTMichael Whiteleyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic742039-163-1.aspxComments posted to this topic are about the item [B]<A HREF="/articles/Auditing/67224/">The New Reality of an Audit Trail</A>[/B]Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:15:44 GMTLeo Peysakhovich