I refer to the article "Deploying Merge Replication Subscribers in SQL Server" by Hilary Cotter Sep 10 2009, and in particular the statement "Several Factors make pull subscriptions a better choice than push subscriptions"
Id like to crystalize the arguments in support this proposition. All reactions welcome
To quote >"Only the final state of the rows is merged during the synchronization. For example if a row is updated 200 times between synchronizations this approach results in only one row having to travel accross the wire, as opposed to the 200 rows that
would have to travel using transactional replication".
This seems a good reason to prefer Merge Replication of Transactional Replication but I do not see how this distinguishes Pull over Push for Merge replication. Is there something different about the way Pull amalgamates multiple transactions to the same
instance as opposed to the way Push does so.
> "Multiples Subscriptions trying to synchronize at the same time can cause merge agents to lock with each other".
The assumption underlying this proposition appears to be that RDBM's should not support transaction concurrency because the overhead of locking required to implement logical transaction isolation is too great. Surely the argument should be
View Complete Post