You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Before using the automatic generation of the DBML file for SQL server, I had queries allowing us to generate our file in DBML format.
In these scripts, I retrieved the description table, which was very useful when viewing tables in dbdocs
Exemple :
This informations are stock on sys.extended_properties where sys.extended_properties.name = MS_Description_Table
Other things : With the actual script we do not respect the order of the columns. Is it possible to keep the same order as the initial script ?
These information are very usefull particulary on our schema wich contains 742 tables and over 16 000 fields :-)
Thanks a lot
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
From your description, I guess you utilized the db2dbml command, and the issue appeared.
With the actual script we do not respect the order of the columns. Is it possible to keep the same order as the initial script ?
Actually, we released a patched version that allows the ability to keep the tables and columns in ordinal order. You can check it here.
About the missing table description, it might be our bugs, so we will note this issue to our backlog and fix it. We will notify you if there are any updates.
Before using the automatic generation of the DBML file for SQL server, I had queries allowing us to generate our file in DBML format.
In these scripts, I retrieved the description table, which was very useful when viewing tables in dbdocs
Exemple :
This informations are stock on sys.extended_properties where sys.extended_properties.name = MS_Description_Table
Other things : With the actual script we do not respect the order of the columns. Is it possible to keep the same order as the initial script ?
These information are very usefull particulary on our schema wich contains 742 tables and over 16 000 fields :-)
Thanks a lot
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: