I am getting the following error on a version 6.5 database
when I run the weekly database backup.
"Allocation Discrepancy: Page is allocated but not linked; check the following pages and ids: allocation pg#=491520 extent id=491720 logical pg#=491720 object id on extent=8 (object name = syslogs) indid on extent=0"
The backup script I run is as follows..
SQLMAINT.EXE -D ECAP -CkDB -CkAl -UpdSts -BkUpDB F:MSSQLBACKUP -BkUpMedia DISK -DelBkUps 8 -Rpt F:MSSQLLOGECAP_DbBkUp.rpt
This database is a 7 x 24 database. What is the least intrusive and/or best way to correct this problem?
During daily scheduled maintenance the following error occurs, which causes the maintenance job to fail. How can we fix? Thanks!
Allocation Discrepancy: Page is allocated but not linked; check the following pages and ids: allocation pg#=1085440 extent id=1085464 logical pg#=1085464 object id on extent=8 (object name = syslogs) indid on extent=0
Hi all, I am running SQL 2000 Enterprise SP4 on Windows Server 2003 Standard SP2
I am getting the follow error message: Table error: Page (1:53888) allocated to object ID 546100986, index ID 0 was not seen. Page may be invalid or have incorrect object ID information in its header.
I check the hardware and didn't see any issues. I run the following command to check the actual page: dbcc traceon (3604) dbcc PAGE ([Statistics], 1, 53888, 1)
Since a couple days, we are getting this message the errorlog of one of our SQL2012 server
LogEntry: Error [36, 17, 145] occurred while attempting to drop allocation unit ID 451879652360192 belonging to worktable with partition ID 451879652360192. (version Microsoft SQL Server 2012 - 11.0.5058.0 (X64))
I am wondering what is the best way trying to troubleshoot this issues? I do not know from which of out database this is coming.
I couldn't remember which computers I had already installed sp2 on so checked but one computer (running Windows Server 2003 and SQL 2005 Enterprise Edition) seems to have a discrepancy. SELECT @@VERSION returns (Build 3790: Service Pack 1) but the status bar shows "9.0 SP2". Thanks for any insight into this.
I have a SQL 7 db that I use a DTS package to import Oracle data into. The package works fine and imports all the appropriate data. However, if I use an Access 2000 database to attach to the data via ODBC (using the MS SQL Server driver), the negative sign is dropped when displaying data in a table, query, or report.
Same problem in SQL Server - if I query the SQL 7 data via the Query Analyzer, the negative signs are dropped. However, if I query the SQL data using the Enterprise Manager (i.e., Open Table...Return All Rows via right click on the table), the data shows up properly with the negative signs there. Bottom line - the data is correct, but doesn't get displayed correctly in QA or via ODBC.
What gives?! Can anyone explain to me the "connections" that occur between EM and QA? Looks like QA uses a "temporary" ODBC connection to talk to the data, while the EM connects "directly" to the data. Also, what gives with the MS SQL Server ODBC driver - why wouldn't it display the negative signs? Is there a better SQL Server ODBC driver that I should/could use? I've tried configuring the ODBC connection differently, but to no avail.
Any help is greatly appreciated, as the data in question is being used in court and absolutely HAS to be accurately displayed. Thanks! Jeff Jones Atlanta, GA
SELECT dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.NAME, dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.TITLE, LOWFARE, ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.AMOUNT as PRICE, 15 AS Lostsavings, LEFT(dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.CostCtr, 4) AS COMPANYCODE, ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.InYear, ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.InMonth, 'TRADITIONAL BOOKING' AS Reason FROM ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL INNER JOIN dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04 ON ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.AWID = dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.AWID AND ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.InMonth = dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.COLMONTH INNER JOIN dbo.TBLMONTHVALUE ON dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.COLMONTH = dbo.TBLMONTHVALUE.monthname WHERE LEFT(dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.CostCtr, 4) = '1038' AND INYEAR = '2004'AND InMonth = 'OCTOBER' AND (ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.DESTINATION = 'DOMESTIC') AND (ITPSG.TBLCCONLINETOOL.TYPE = 'TRADITIONAL') UNION SELECT dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.NAME, dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.TITLE, LOWFARE, ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.PRICE as PRICE, ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.Lostsavings AS Lostsavings, LEFT(dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.CostCtr, 4) AS COMPANYCODE, ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.InYear, ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.InMonth, ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.Reason FROM ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS INNER JOIN dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04 ON ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.AWID = dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.AWID AND ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.InMonth = dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.COLMONTH INNER JOIN dbo.TBLMONTHVALUE ON dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.COLMONTH = dbo.TBLMONTHVALUE.monthname WHERE (LEFT(dbo.TBLCCINFORMATIONOCTOBER04.CostCtr, 4) = '1038') AND (ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.InYear = '2004') AND (ITPSG.TBLCCEXCEPTIONS.InMonth = 'OCTOBER') ORDER BY Reason
It returns these 16 records, 10 from the 1st table and 6 from the second. If I just remove the UNION operator and run them seperatly I get 11 from the 1st table and 6 from the second.
The record I am losing is the second of these two, but with the fields I am selecting they appear identical: R,JosephField Operations Director INULL267.00001510382004octoberTRADITIONAL BOOKING R,JosephField Operations Director INULL267.00001510382004octoberTRADITIONAL BOOKING
Is there any reason why the UNION statement is making that second record vanish? Is there a way I can alter the statement so I can run the query with the UNION and not lose records?
How could I correct the erroneous value on the property window of an SQL Table.
My problem is that, if I am going to display the property window of Table1, the 'Rows' information displays 115. However, if I am going to execute - Select Count(*) from Table1 then it returns 117. How could I fix this glitch?
After performing copy_only backup of the Database using the below query, I restored the Database and now I checked and found out that there is a discrepancy in the table structure of the restored Database.Its a scheduled backup job.one of the column of the table varchar(300) has been changed to varchar(200)
BACKUP DATABASE DBname TO DISK = N'D:BACKUPdbname.bak' WITH COPY_ONLY, NOFORMAT, NOINIT, NAME = N'Database Backup', SKIP, NOREWIND, NOUNLOAD, STATS = 10 GO
I ran the following query in Query Analyzer for a 7 column table.SELECT c.name,c.colid FROM syscolumns c WHERE c.id=925962375 ORDER BYc.colidThe results were:I_CSD 1X_STE_XML2I_USR_LCK4T_CRT_RCD5I_USR_CRT_RCD6T_UDT_RCD7I_USR_UDT_RCD8If I use the information_schema view (SELECT column_name,ordinal_position FROM information_schema.columns WHERE table_name ='CSD_XML') I get the same results.The problem is that the colids go from 2 to 4 and the colids gothrough 8 when there are only 7 columns.At one time there was another column in the table, but it has sincebeen dropped and isn't there anymore. It seems that the colids insyscolumns did not update when the column was dropped.Is this because of the way I dropped the column? Is there anything Ican do now that it has happened?
I need to create a 5GB database with 4GB for data and 1GB for log in v7.0. I know that in v6.5 I would have created five 1GB devices - to go easy on the backups.
Could someone please advise on how I should distibute allocation of space. Should I allocate 1GB to the primary files and 1GB each to 3 secondary files? Should I just allocate 4GB to primary?
I would really really appreciate any reponse? If there are articles I would appreciate links.
I have a small data warehouse which periodically has old data deleted. However after a delete the free space within the database is not released. If I copy the tables, drop them, recreate, and copy back, the space is there.
I was wondering, is there a way to allocate processors to SQL2000. I have a server that has 4 processors, I would like to leave one just for the operating system and have SQL2000 use the other 3. Is this possible and do you think it would be recomended to do this? Or should i just leave the 4 processors for everything?
I have one database with multipe MDF files.Normally when I am creating a new table it's going to primary MDF file.How I can allocate a new table to the MDF file which I am specifying when table is creating
I have windows 2003 with ms sql 2000. The machine has 3.6 gigs of ram and only runs ms sql, nothing else. Whenever the first query is made sql will allocate as much as 1.5 gigs of ram which is just killing the system. This system reboots nightly so this first query happens every morning. We have tried setting the min and max memory of sql, as well as the reserver memory setting to see if it will preallocate all that memory but we've had no luck.
Is there a way to make SQL allocate all that memory ahead of time? maybe make it cache some tables or something?
I know very little about MS SQL so please be very descriptive about possible solutions or troubleshooting steps.
can some one throw some light on how the DBAs calucaulate the space allocations?
For example I have 30000 records which has 30 columns each defined as varchar(100) and if the db is full and wants to increase the space. Then how much extrac space should be allocated??
How to find how much memory allocated to SQLCLR by sqlserver. Also is there any way to determine how much memory my code needs to run? Thanks in advance.
Any comments, please. I have a new server 5x160GB drives. It needs to run IIS for a web app and SQL Server 2005. One user database. I was thinking of dividing space as follows and wanted to get some thoughts from others.
On two different unrelated servers this week, I got these errors from a DBCC CHECKDB(tempdb):
Msg 8905, Level 16, State 1, Server NTSONYX, Procedure P_DATABASE_BACKUPS, Line 121 [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]Extent (1:136752) in database ID 2 is marked allocated in the GAM, but no SGAM or IAM has allocated it.
A re-boot solved the problem, but what is causing it?
I'm log shipping to AWS. Currently, we are shipping from a server with 64 GB RAM to one at AWS with 30. It's not a massive server but does have periods of high usage when certain jobs/tasks run. It's been running fine for a year but the server size is large and is barely used. My understanding is that for simply log shipping, we don't need a lot of memory and I was hoping to drop the instance size down and use an instance with 16 GB Ram instead. It would save thousands per year.
I would like to ask regarding the memory allocation fo SQL Server 2000. For example if my Data Server have 8GB physical memory installed how much memory can SQL Server 2000 utilize? Based on my research and understing SQL 2000 Server can only utilize 3GB memory? But using the AWE you can set the memory to a maximum server memory?
I’m setting up a server for development that will have one instance of SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition and one of SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition installed.
The server has a total of 3.5 GB of physical memory, so I was wondering about the best way to allocate the memory. Should I just let both instances have the default allocation and let them fight it out for memory as needed, or allocate a memory limit for each instance?
I am setting up a server under Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition (SP1) and SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition (SP4). The new server is a AMD opteron with 32 GB of memory. I noticed that PAE is enabled automatically by Windows 2003. Should I enable AWE for SQL Server 2000 and specify Max and Min amount of memory for SQL Server ?? Is there a limit on how much I could specify in MAX memory for SQL??
This is the first time I have a server with so much memory so I want to make sure that I do the right thing. In the past I only have servers with 8 GB of memory and we just enable AWE and specify Max memory to 6 GB or so.
I wanted to know on what basis the disk space allocation for the databases is planned . Suppose if we plan 60 GB for data files ( mdf )for a given database then what should be the space allocation for the log files ( ldf ) and the tempdb ( both mdf and ldf files ).
Is there any thumb rule or any defined ratio for the same ?
I have gotten mixed comments on this topic. I have a 64 bit machine running 64 windows 2003 standard and 64 SQL 2005 standard with 8 GB of RAM. We want to upgrade it to 32 GB. What is the best approach to do this? Dynamic or Stattic giving min and max server memory a value ? and if static what value should I use for 32 GB knowing that this box is only being used for SQL.
