Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««123

Database defintion from an Excel Spec? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:00 AM
Say Hey Kid

Say Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey Kid

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:42 PM
Points: 711, Visits: 677
It seems like it would be an easy thing to add some VBA code to the excel sheet with an ADO connection to the database.

ADOdb.Open (connectionstring)
Loop table names
Apply Filter
ADOdb.CommandText = Concatenate all the relevant cells
ADOdb.Execute
Loop Back
ADOdb.close

This should run each create statement in a couple of minutes
Post #817952
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:28 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:54 PM
Points: 67, Visits: 230
Personally, I would have not created a SQL script at all. I would have created a VBA module (formerly known as an Excel macro) that reads the spreadsheet columns and creates a text file/SQL script as output, containing Create Table statements, which will create all of the tables. Then you just have to open the generated SQL script and run it. The Excel macro could create one script per table, or one per several tables.

That seems simpler to me. But then, I'm good with both SQL and VBA.
Post #818013
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:01 PM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:44 PM
Points: 358, Visits: 901
maybe i'm over-simplifying. but with only 4 or 5 tables, why couldn't you just import them using the Import/Export Wizard? every solution i've seen including the OP seems way more complicated than it needs to be. VB module? there's already a built-in wizard for this.
Post #818030
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:59 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 10:47 PM
Points: 244, Visits: 19
Seems like you were working with inept management. If the vendor I'm working with doesn't trust their own work, I don't think I would be comfortable with them. At the least hold back the 10% or whatever retention should have been written into the contract subject to my satisfaction.
Post #818071
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:08 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 10:47 PM
Points: 244, Visits: 19
The requirements should have been written into the document. If you're looking at state and federal level - the request for proposal might need to be rewritten. It could be a change control issue or an out for the vendor if there are problems. The vendor has a low level of confidence in their product or is trying to apply it generically across a number of RDMS.
Post #818079
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:15 PM
Say Hey Kid

Say Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey Kid

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:42 PM
Points: 711, Visits: 677
All of these last statements are true, but the author specifically said it was too late for any of those things, and sometimes you just find yourself saying 'Next time I won't....' but until then, you just have to deal with it.

I'm also sure he did not then say 'Hey, now I have this cool program/script generator, who needs contracts and project specs anymore'

If you don't need it, don't use it. Unfortunately, in the real world, this kind of thing happens more frequently than we would like.
Post #818121
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 11:53 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:44 AM
Points: 40, Visits: 329
Well it's a good 5-6 months since I created that script, and it looks as if the project to implement this new software has been delayed until March next year!

Quite frankly, it's difficult to guess at what the politics are.

The consultancy, who is not the software vendor, may well not totally trust the software.

Someone in the higher management structure is keen to be one of the first organisations to successfully implement this software .... in order to impress /their/ (government) client ... or to attract a bonus funding reward ... maybe!

And somewhere along the line, it had been decided, between the consultancy and software client, that we had to deliver something before the consultancy did!! [and they still haven't, as far as I know!!]

The chain of relationships is far from simple to say the least!

Software Vendor
- Software consultancy
- Government body i) (End user) and
- Government body ii) (Information Management)

Inevitably, with such an extended relationship between software vendor and end user, is it any surprise that focus can be pulled in a number of directions. Ideally, both government bodies will have elected a single representative, equally responsive to both, to simplify that relationship chain.

However, my experience of governmental bodies is that they are very reluctant to relinquish control, if they can possibly help it!
Post #818780
Posted Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:51 AM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:06 AM
Points: 337, Visits: 1,981
ian.hadlington (11/13/2009)
Well it's a good 5-6 months since I created that script, and it looks as if the project to implement this new software has been delayed until March next year!

Quite frankly, it's difficult to guess at what the politics are.

The consultancy, who is not the software vendor, may well not totally trust the software.

Someone in the higher management structure is keen to be one of the first organisations to successfully implement this software .... in order to impress /their/ (government) client ... or to attract a bonus funding reward ... maybe!

And somewhere along the line, it had been decided, between the consultancy and software client, that we had to deliver something before the consultancy did!! [and they still haven't, as far as I know!!]

The chain of relationships is far from simple to say the least!

Software Vendor
- Software consultancy
- Government body i) (End user) and
- Government body ii) (Information Management)

Inevitably, with such an extended relationship between software vendor and end user, is it any surprise that focus can be pulled in a number of directions. Ideally, both government bodies will have elected a single representative, equally responsive to both, to simplify that relationship chain.

However, my experience of governmental bodies is that they are very reluctant to relinquish control, if they can possibly help it!


Unfortunately that post can be boiled down to 2 words:
Public Sector
Post #820649
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««123

Permissions Expand / Collapse