|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:58 AM
Points: 6,655,
Visits: 5,678
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:39 AM
Points: 1,768,
Visits: 1,312
|
|
Good question!!!
--------------------------------------------------- "Thare are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't."
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:10 AM
Points: 1,078,
Visits: 1,144
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Eights!
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:32 AM
Points: 925,
Visits: 996
|
|
Easy but tricky question, Srikant
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:44 PM
Points: 1,786,
Visits: 3,323
|
|
Good question, but I thing the answer options are a little confusing.
"-Extents can be owned by multiple objects" True, mixed extents. "-Rows can span multiple pages (excluding LOB data)" True. Row-overflow. "-Extents can be owned by only one object" False, since they can be a mixed extent (or even an extent that has not been allocated). Perhaps it's your use of the word "only" that confuses me, but what I read is "an extent must be owned by one, and only one, object." "-Data pages can be owned by multiple objects" False, obviously. "-Text data is stored on data pages." Do you mean text as in the datatype text, or as in text/strings? If you mean text as the text datatype, which makes this answer false, then please write so. If you mean text as in all data types that can store strings, then this answer is true. "-Data pages can be owned by only one object" True. One and only one object can use a data page. And when you compare the extent vs data page answers, you see why I'm confused. "-A table row can be bigger than 8060 bytes if some of the datatypes are variable" True. Again, row-overflow.
I don't care about the points, but I think some of the options were a little vague. Or perhaps I'm just wrong
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy Eights
        
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:39 AM
Points: 9,370,
Visits: 6,467
|
|
Nils Gustav Stråbø (5/13/2011)
"-Extents can be owned by only one object" False, since they can be a mixed extent (or even an extent that has not been allocated). Perhaps it's your use of the word "only" that confuses me, but what I read is "an extent must be owned by one, and only one, object."
The question uses the word can, not must. If an extent can be owned by multiple objects, it can certainly be owned by one object.
Anyway, nice question, but only one point?
How to post forum questions. Need an answer? No, you need a question. What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?
Member of LinkedIn. My blog at LessThanDot.
 MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
|
|
|
|
|
Mr or Mrs. 500
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:12 AM
Points: 557,
Visits: 1,356
|
|
| Good question but the wording was a little ambiguous in my opinion. I learnt something though so I'm not complaining.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCommitted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:44 PM
Points: 1,786,
Visits: 3,323
|
|
@Koen, yes I agree that I should not have interpreted the word "can" as "must", but unfortunately I did 
But the answer about text data is definitely ambiguous. Based on the "correct" answer it obviously related to the text datatype, not text data in general.
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:34 PM
Points: 2,170,
Visits: 3,582
|
|
Good question, I could get 3 options right :)
Mohammed Moinudheen
|
|
|
|
|
SSCarpal Tunnel
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:51 AM
Points: 4,425,
Visits: 7,187
|
|
Koen Verbeeck (5/13/2011)
Nils Gustav Stråbø (5/13/2011)
"-Extents can be owned by only one object" False, since they can be a mixed extent (or even an extent that has not been allocated). Perhaps it's your use of the word "only" that confuses me, but what I read is "an extent must be owned by one, and only one, object."
The question uses the word can, not must. If an extent can be owned by multiple objects, it can certainly be owned by one object. Anyway, nice question, but only one point? I'm with Nils on this. The sentence can be interpreted as "it is only possible for an extent to be owned by one object" or as "it is possible for an extent to be owned by only one object". I went for the former and so got it wrong. But, as has been pointed out, it's the discussion and what you learn that's important, not the points.
John
|
|
|
|