My team versions our database schema as C# classes with the rest of our code. We have a homegrown C# program (<500 lines of code) that reflects the classes and creates SQL commands to build, drop and update the database. After creating the database we run sqlmetal to generate a linq mapping, which is then compiled in another project that is used to generate test data. The whole things works really well because data access is checked at compile time. We like it because the schema is stored in a .cs file which is easy to track compare in trac/svn.

数据库本身?没有

创建它们的脚本，包括静态数据插入、存储过程等;当然可以。它们是文本文件，它们包含在项目中，像其他东西一样签入和签出。

当然，在理想情况下，您的数据库管理工具可以做到这一点;但你必须遵守纪律。

I agree with many of the posting concerning ruby's ActiveRecord migrations - they are an elegant way to manage the database in small incremental files that everyone can share. With that said, I've recently implemented a project using VisualStudio's Database Project, and it's kinda made me a believer. Short story - you create a database project, import all (if any) existing database objects into it (tables/views/triggers/keys/users/etc). That import results in a "Create" script per object. To manage the database you alter the create script and then on deploy VS compares the target database to the state of the database residing in your project and apply the proper alter statements.

这真的有点神奇，我必须承认，这是VS团队做的更好的事情之一。到目前为止，我真的很感动。

当然，您可以在自己选择的版本控制系统中管理整个数据库项目。

是的。代码就是代码。我的经验法则是，我需要能够从头构建和部署应用程序，而不需要查看开发或生产机器。

我已经开始研究sqlHawk，它的目标是围绕这个问题提供(开源)工具。

它目前处于相当早期的阶段，但已经支持存储和执行存储过程以及运行脚本更新。

如果有任何人有时间看这个工具，我将非常感激。

为公然的自我推销道歉，但我希望这对某人有用!

作为一种规则，我们将所有的对象代码(存储过程、视图、触发器、函数等)都保存在源代码控制中，因为这些对象都是代码，而且几乎所有其他答案都同意，代码属于某种形式的版本控制系统。

As for CREATE, DROP, ALTER statements, etc. (DDL), we developed and use BuildMaster to manage the deployment of these scripts such that they can be run once and only once against a target database (whether they fail or not). The general idea is that developers will upload change scripts into the system and when it comes time for deployment, only the change scripts that haven't been run against the target environment's database will be run (this is managed very similarly to Autocracy's answer). The reason for this separation of script types lies in that once you manipulate a table's structure, add an index, etc., you effectively cannot undo that without writing a brand new script, or restoring the database - as opposed to the object code where you can simply drop a view or stored procedure then recreate it.

例如，当您将生产数据库恢复到集成环境中时，可以看到一些好处，系统会自动准确地知道哪些脚本没有运行，并将更改新恢复的数据库的表结构，使其与开发相关。