SQL Server事务复制和不同的主键

Question

With SQL Server 2005 and transactional replication, can I remove the primary key constraints on the subscriber, while leaving the primary key constraints on the publisher?

Primary I want to do this because I want to cluster on different columns than the existing clustered constraints. I don't think I can convert a constraint from clustered to nonclustered without dropping it first, and replication is already occurring.

Answer 1

Why don't you leave the primary key and create additional non clustered indexes on the subscriber or will this not resolve your problem? If the reason to have other columns indexed on the subscriber is performance then this should be a solution.

Answer 2

This might work for snapshot replication, but I'm not sure it would work with transactional replication. The sole requirement on a table to allow it to be replicated is the existence of a primary key to allow each row to be uniquely identified.

You could try pausing replication and then try dropping the primary key constraint, recreating it as a non-clustered PK and then un-pausing replication. If SQL Server will not allow you to drop the PK, you'll find out before you do any damage.

The alternative is to break replication and reinitialise it.

Either way, you'll want to do the change during a maintenance window.

Answer 3

Directly, for primary key its not possible. Other way round: When you set the transactional replication, when you select the articles for replication, you can select different properties like "check foreign key contstraint". Set that property to false. In db1 convert your primary key to a foreign key with some new table tb1 containing that as primary key. So, ultimately , on your replication db db2, the foreign key constraint wont be replicated and thus allowing you to do what you want.

Answer 4

The basic of replication process is to maintain identical database organisation between different servers.

Your question here can be considered as asking if a replication process can be used to break this basic replication principle.

So the answer is no, but I am still interested in the reasons that let you formulate this question. Shall I say that this "dual primary key" option was seen as a way to solve another problem? I think you should go back to this initial issue and try to find another way to solve it.

Answer 5

I did my own homework, and came to the conclusion that you can drop the constraints on the subscriber.

I set up a simple transactional replication scenario, dropped the primary key on the subscriber, and then did some inserts, deletes and updates, and verified that the changes were replicated to the subscriber.

I guess I should have done that to begin with. I didn't know it was going to be that easy :).