Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sql queues use deprecated timestamp type #1117

Closed
jerrosenberg opened this issue Apr 16, 2013 · 3 comments
Closed

Sql queues use deprecated timestamp type #1117

jerrosenberg opened this issue Apr 16, 2013 · 3 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@jerrosenberg
Copy link
Contributor

From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182776.aspx

The timestamp syntax is deprecated. This feature will be removed in a future version of Microsoft SQL Server. Avoid using this feature in new development work, and plan to modify applications that currently use this feature.

Should use rowversion instead, BUT..

There are good reasons NOT to use rowversion/timestamp at all, and to use a bigint identity(1,1) instead.

  • Messages are never updated, which is what rowversion is good at.
  • Rowversion is incremented for every insert/update in the database. Identity is incremented only for every insert into the table. Yes, it's 64-bits, but no use encouraging overflow when we don't need the features of rowversion.
  • Rowversion is not guaranteed to be unique when used in certain queries like SELECT INTO. This is probably not a problem for stock NServiceBus, but could cause a problem in some integration scenarios. This would break the clustered index. Identity works fine with these scenarios.
@johnsimons
Copy link
Member

I guess the question is, should we do this for v4?
@andreasohlund @udidahan @johannesg thoughts?

@andreasohlund
Copy link
Member

Lets do it, should be an easy fix and would save us from a tricky upgrade path

@johnsimons
Copy link
Member

Hi @jerrosenberg,
I've replaced it with identity(1,1), can you check?
Also can you check the index we create?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants