best way to keep updated database copy on same server

Hi,
I was hoping to get some advise on my SQL 2000 server: I would like an
automatically updated copy of the main database kept on the same server. Any
changes made to this copy would NOT be synchronized to the main database,
however, changes made to the main database need to be immediately synched to
the copy. This would give me an up-to-date copy that can be worked with and
manipulated in ways that would be inappropriate for the actual database. Any
thoughts on the easiest solution would be greately appreciated.
thx,
AF
AF,
transactional replication and log shipping are often used for reporting
databases. However you say you want to actually manipulate the data - if
this means data changes are required, then the above 2 methods will not work
(log shipping forces the database into read-only mode and tr will probably
have synchronization errors) so a different solution is required. In this
case I'd use either snapshot replication or ship the backups and restore -
obviously both methods will have a sizeable delay in data transfer.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||I checked in to transactional replicaiton, which looks promising. If I could
have the main database update/overwrite the copy every 30 minutes or so, that
should work. Since I am not worried about replicating to a different
physical server, do you know if there is a simpler method for such updates?
I appreciate the help,
AF
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> AF,
> transactional replication and log shipping are often used for reporting
> databases. However you say you want to actually manipulate the data - if
> this means data changes are required, then the above 2 methods will not work
> (log shipping forces the database into read-only mode and tr will probably
> have synchronization errors) so a different solution is required. In this
> case I'd use either snapshot replication or ship the backups and restore -
> obviously both methods will have a sizeable delay in data transfer.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
>
|||I have concerns about using transactional replication for your purposes. You
mention that there will be manipulation of the data on the subscriber. If by
this you mean data changes, this'll likely cause errors and a failure of the
distribution agent. If you're just doing reads then it'll be ok.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)