Merging Lists into same Table ?

Apr 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I was just curious about slamming two different Sharepoint list to the same SQL table (in the slam.config I have used the same "TableName" attribute for both Lists).
It seems that the resulting SQL table is filled/overwritten by the content of the first list. Is that correct ?
Are there any plans to "officially" merge several lists into the same SQL Table ?
When yes:
What is the result/procedure when the two lists have a) same and b) different column names and c) different source and d) different target type ?
When no:
Could we extend the Control Panel's validation in a sense, that it will come up with a warning when the same target tables are used twice ?

kind regards
Apr 6, 2009 at 2:05 AM
This is a scenario that is theoretically possible now, but doing a synch would result in the data from one list being loaded but not the other (since it does them separately and would treat them as separate...).  That said I expect that if you had two lists slamming to the same table, if simply editing items from both lists, so long as the relevant fields for each are all represented in the table, will appear in the table.  So if I have a List with Field1 and Field2 and a second List with Field3, the table will require all 3 fields, which of course will not be the case after SLAM's usual table generation (say based on the first List).  I would expect this to work if Field3, in this hypothetical case, is added manually to the table.  Usually in cases like this we configure SLAM against a content type because of if two lists have the sort of information where it makes sense to SLAM them to the same table the chances are great that a content type should be used anyhow.

As for updates to the control panel, this may be useful, among many other messages, to be added.  This situation however should be more fully supported.  I think that the change really required here is for the synch process to accomodate for two Lists slamming to the same table AND for SLAM to add columns to an existing table on the fly.  The latter has been on our radar for a while but has not been implemeneted.

Thanks for all of your feedback,