Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a DBCC
DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc. However,
showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?Perhaps DBCC UPDATEUSAGE will fix the incorrect stats.
Keith Kratochvil
"Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> DBCC
> DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> However,
> showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?|||Thanks. I've already done that and it didn't.
"Keith Kratochvil" wrote:
> Perhaps DBCC UPDATEUSAGE will fix the incorrect stats.
> --
> Keith Kratochvil
>
> "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi Shirley
Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
nonclustered?
How much free space is in the database?
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> DBCC
> DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> However,
> showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?|||Hi Kalen, thanks for replying.
There is one clustered IX and 3 NC IX. These are the results
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 98.18% [292775:2981
97] CL
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.10% [22661:41886
] NC
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 52.88% [30754:58162
] NC
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.74% [27210:49709
] NC
There is about 30 GB free space in the DB and it can autogrow.
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:
> Hi Shirley
> Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
> Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
> nonclustered?
> How much free space is in the database?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Problem fixed. I ran an UPDATE STATISTICS again but with the FULLSCAN option
,
then re-ran the reorg and all looks fine now. Don't know why this just
started to happen but will do the updatestats before the reorg every time no
w.
"Shirley" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Kalen, thanks for replying.
> There is one clustered IX and 3 NC IX. These are the results
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 98.18% [292775:29
8197] CL
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.10% [22661:418
86] NC
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 52.88% [30754:581
62] NC
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.74% [27210:497
09] NC
> There is about 30 GB free space in the DB and it can autogrow.
>
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
>
Showing posts with label incorrect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label incorrect. Show all posts
Sunday, March 25, 2012
DBCC SHOWCONTIG incorrect?
Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a DBCC
DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc. However,
showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?Perhaps DBCC UPDATEUSAGE will fix the incorrect stats.
--
Keith Kratochvil
"Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> DBCC
> DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> However,
> showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?|||Thanks. I've already done that and it didn't.
"Keith Kratochvil" wrote:
> Perhaps DBCC UPDATEUSAGE will fix the incorrect stats.
> --
> Keith Kratochvil
>
> "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> > DBCC
> > DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> > However,
> > showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> > update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> > space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> > everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?
>
>|||Hi Shirley
Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
nonclustered?
How much free space is in the database?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> DBCC
> DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> However,
> showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?|||Hi Kalen, thanks for replying.
There is one clustered IX and 3 NC IX. These are the results
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 98.18% [292775:298197] CL
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.10% [22661:41886] NC
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 52.88% [30754:58162] NC
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.74% [27210:49709] NC
There is about 30 GB free space in the DB and it can autogrow.
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:
> Hi Shirley
> Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
> Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
> nonclustered?
> How much free space is in the database?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> > DBCC
> > DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> > However,
> > showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> > update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> > space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> > everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?
>
>|||Problem fixed. I ran an UPDATE STATISTICS again but with the FULLSCAN option,
then re-ran the reorg and all looks fine now. Don't know why this just
started to happen but will do the updatestats before the reorg every time now.
"Shirley" wrote:
> Hi Kalen, thanks for replying.
> There is one clustered IX and 3 NC IX. These are the results
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 98.18% [292775:298197] CL
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.10% [22661:41886] NC
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 52.88% [30754:58162] NC
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.74% [27210:49709] NC
> There is about 30 GB free space in the DB and it can autogrow.
>
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
> > Hi Shirley
> >
> > Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
> > Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
> > nonclustered?
> > How much free space is in the database?
> >
> > --
> > HTH
> > Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> > > DBCC
> > > DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> > > However,
> > > showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> > > update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> > > space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> > > everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?
> >
> >
> >
DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc. However,
showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?Perhaps DBCC UPDATEUSAGE will fix the incorrect stats.
--
Keith Kratochvil
"Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> DBCC
> DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> However,
> showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?|||Thanks. I've already done that and it didn't.
"Keith Kratochvil" wrote:
> Perhaps DBCC UPDATEUSAGE will fix the incorrect stats.
> --
> Keith Kratochvil
>
> "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> > DBCC
> > DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> > However,
> > showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> > update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> > space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> > everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?
>
>|||Hi Shirley
Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
nonclustered?
How much free space is in the database?
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
"Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> DBCC
> DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> However,
> showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?|||Hi Kalen, thanks for replying.
There is one clustered IX and 3 NC IX. These are the results
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 98.18% [292775:298197] CL
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.10% [22661:41886] NC
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 52.88% [30754:58162] NC
- Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.74% [27210:49709] NC
There is about 30 GB free space in the DB and it can autogrow.
"Kalen Delaney" wrote:
> Hi Shirley
> Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
> Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
> nonclustered?
> How much free space is in the database?
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
>
> "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> > DBCC
> > DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> > However,
> > showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> > update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> > space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> > everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?
>
>|||Problem fixed. I ran an UPDATE STATISTICS again but with the FULLSCAN option,
then re-ran the reorg and all looks fine now. Don't know why this just
started to happen but will do the updatestats before the reorg every time now.
"Shirley" wrote:
> Hi Kalen, thanks for replying.
> There is one clustered IX and 3 NC IX. These are the results
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 98.18% [292775:298197] CL
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.10% [22661:41886] NC
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 52.88% [30754:58162] NC
> - Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count]......: 54.74% [27210:49709] NC
> There is about 30 GB free space in the DB and it can autogrow.
>
> "Kalen Delaney" wrote:
> > Hi Shirley
> >
> > Can you show us the details from DBCC SHOWCONTIG?
> > Also, how many indexes are there? Are they all fragmented, clustered and
> > nonclustered?
> > How much free space is in the database?
> >
> > --
> > HTH
> > Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> >
> >
> > "Shirley" <Shirley@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:B05EB837-51D3-40E1-B517-E758862A412A@.microsoft.com...
> > > Hi. I have a table that has 58 million rows and is about 24 GB. I ran a
> > > DBCC
> > > DBREINDEX which appeared to run fine - new fillfactor showing etc.
> > > However,
> > > showcontig still shows the indexes as being badly fragmented. I've run an
> > > update stats with fullscan and update usage which has corrected incorrect
> > > space stats but that's all. I run this process every month and normally
> > > everything works as expected. Any ideas why this time it didn't please?
> >
> >
> >
Sunday, February 19, 2012
DBCC CHECKDB returns error, sys.sysobjvalues
Hello,
Just starting to work with sql 2005.
Run DBCC CHECKDB on user database and received this message:
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:224) in object ID 60, index
ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type LOB
data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 2 consistency errors in table
'sys.sysobjvalues' (object ID 60).
The thing is I can't find sys.sysobjvalues table anywhere.
What is it?
Thanks.Hi Jan
If you run sp_help, or select * from sys.objects, you should see object, and
see the fact that it is a system table.
By default, you cannot access the system tables in SQL Server 2005; metadata
is accessed through catalog views (such as sys.objects)
If you use the Dedicated Administrator Connection, you can select from
sys.sysobjvalues, but it wouldn't enlighten you much as it is very cryptic
information.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Jan" <Jan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79ED5E8D-0BAC-4E1B-8109-A8659F78513C@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Just starting to work with sql 2005.
> Run DBCC CHECKDB on user database and received this message:
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:224) in object ID 60,
> index
> ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type
> LOB
> data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 2 consistency errors in table
> 'sys.sysobjvalues' (object ID 60).
> The thing is I can't find sys.sysobjvalues table anywhere.
> What is it?
> Thanks.
Just starting to work with sql 2005.
Run DBCC CHECKDB on user database and received this message:
Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:224) in object ID 60, index
ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type LOB
data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 2 consistency errors in table
'sys.sysobjvalues' (object ID 60).
The thing is I can't find sys.sysobjvalues table anywhere.
What is it?
Thanks.Hi Jan
If you run sp_help, or select * from sys.objects, you should see object, and
see the fact that it is a system table.
By default, you cannot access the system tables in SQL Server 2005; metadata
is accessed through catalog views (such as sys.objects)
If you use the Dedicated Administrator Connection, you can select from
sys.sysobjvalues, but it wouldn't enlighten you much as it is very cryptic
information.
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblog.com
"Jan" <Jan@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79ED5E8D-0BAC-4E1B-8109-A8659F78513C@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> Just starting to work with sql 2005.
> Run DBCC CHECKDB on user database and received this message:
> Incorrect PFS free space information for page (1:224) in object ID 60,
> index
> ID 1, partition ID 281474980642816, alloc unit ID 71776119065149440 (type
> LOB
> data). Expected value 0_PCT_FULL, actual value 100_PCT_FULL.
> CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 2 consistency errors in table
> 'sys.sysobjvalues' (object ID 60).
> The thing is I can't find sys.sysobjvalues table anywhere.
> What is it?
> Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)