Corrupt Database running dbcc checkdb, missing sys.indexes (urgent help needed!)

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQL Server 2005 » Data Corruption » Corrupt Database running dbcc checkdb,...

20 posts, Page 2 of 2

««1 2

Corrupt Database running dbcc checkdb, missing sys.indexes (urgent help needed!)

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

GilaMonster

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:02 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:11 PM
Points: 37,741, Visits: 30,020

Holger, does this query return anything? If so, try a drop statistics with the name returned and see if that fixes the problem. Absolutely no promises.

select object_name(object_id), name, stats_id from sys.stats where object_id = 1379588053 and stats_id = 3

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #727487

Paul Randal

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:37 AM

SSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:00 PM
Points: 1,910, Visits: 1,602

Hey Gail - I keep forgetting that trick you used last time too - cool if that works.

Paul Randal
CEO, SQLskills.com: Check out SQLskills online training!
Blog:www.SQLskills.com/blogs/paul Twitter: @PaulRandal
SQL MVP, Microsoft RD, Contributing Editor of TechNet Magazine
Author of DBCC CHECKDB/repair (and other Storage Engine) code of SQL Server 2005

Post #727523

Holger Degroot

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:56 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:14 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 19

Hi Gail,

yes, hopefully DBCC CHECKDB works now.
The Statement delivers one entry: table and the field-/value/entry
DROP STATISTICS gwdatastruct._WA_Sys_DataFormat_523AD7D5 works also
and now checking the Database again.
Will inform you in about 15 minutes.
Thanks for now.

Kind regards
Holger Degroot

Post #727546

Holger Degroot

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:43 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:14 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 19

hi Gail,

this worked out. Thankx a LOT!!!!

now the followin errors appear:
I will treat them the same way and report later on.

DBCC-Ergebnis für 'SysSrvAccess'.
Es sind 2725 Zeilen auf 49 Seiten für das "SysSrvAccess"-Objekt vorhanden.
DBCC-Ergebnis für 'GWSYSMessages'.
Meldung 8978, Ebene 16, Status 1, Zeile 1
Tabellenfehler: Objekt-ID 1870017793, Index-ID 4, Partitions-ID 72057594130071552, Zuordnungseinheits-ID 72057594165723136 (In-row data-Typ). Für Seite (1:102) fehlt ein Verweis der Vorgängerseite (1:215041). Möglicherweise liegt ein Kettenverknüpfungsproblem vor.
Meldung 8928, Ebene 16, Status 1, Zeile 1
Objekt-ID 1870017793, Index-ID 4, Partitions-ID 72057594130071552, Zuordnungseinheits-ID 72057594165723136 (In-row data-Typ): Seite (1:215041) konnte nicht verarbeitet werden. Einzelheiten finden Sie in anderen Fehlermeldungen.
Meldung 8976, Ebene 16, Status 1, Zeile 1
Tabellenfehler: Objekt-ID 1870017793, Index-ID 4, Partitions-ID 72057594130071552, Zuordnungseinheits-ID 72057594165723136 (In-row data-Typ). Seite (1:215041) wurde im Scan nicht betrachtet, obwohl das übergeordnete Element (1:427259) und der Vorgänger (1:175) darauf verweisen. Überprüfen Sie ggf. alle vorherigen Fehler.
Meldung 8944, Ebene 16, Status 16, Zeile 1
Tabellenfehler: Objekt-ID 1870017793, Index-ID 4, Partitions-ID 72057594130071552, Zuordnungseinheits-ID 72057594165723136 (In-row data-Typ), Seite (1:215041), Zeile 46. Fehler bei Test (VarColOffsets + (int)(sizeof (class VarColOffset) * nVarCols) <= (nextRec - pRec)). Die Werte sind 58387 und 35.
Meldung 8944, Ebene 16, Status 16, Zeile 1
Tabellenfehler: Objekt-ID 1870017793, Index-ID 4, Partitions-ID 72057594130071552, Zuordnungseinheits-ID 72057594165723136 (In-row data-Typ), Seite (1:215041), Zeile 46. Fehler bei Test (VarColOffsets + (int)(sizeof (class VarColOffset) * nVarCols) <= (nextRec - pRec)). Die Werte sind 58387 und 35.
Es sind 36967 Zeilen auf 2454 Seiten für das "GWSYSMessages"-Objekt vorhanden.
Von CHECKDB wurden 0 Zuordnungsfehler und 5 Konsistenzfehler in der 'GWSYSMessages'-Tabelle (Objekt-ID 1870017793) gefunden.
DBCC-Ergebnis für 'DOCUMENTTEMPLORel'.
Es sind 165 Zeilen auf 6 Seiten für das "DOCUMENTTEMPLORel"-Objekt vorhanden.

Thanks for the moment.

Holger Degroot
Smile

Post #727583

GilaMonster

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:00 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:11 PM
Points: 37,741, Visits: 30,020

Holger Degroot (6/2/2009)

hi Gail,

this worked out. Thankx a LOT!!!!

Excellent. I'm glad to hear that.

I don't understand the errors (sorry, don't speak or read German) so I can't advice you on them.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #727798

Paul Randal

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:16 PM

SSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:00 PM
Points: 1,910, Visits: 1,602

These are all record corruptions in nonclustered index ID 4. My guess is your IO subsystem is causing corruption, which was what corrupted the system table too.

You should be able to offline rebuild the index to fix this, otherwise you're looking at drop/create or repair to rebuild it. If these are the only corruptions, there's no point restoring from your backups the nonclustered index is redundant data anyway.

You also need to find out what's causing these corruptions so you can fix it so they don't happen again to something more critical that can't be repaired.

Paul Randal
CEO, SQLskills.com: Check out SQLskills online training!
Blog:www.SQLskills.com/blogs/paul Twitter: @PaulRandal
SQL MVP, Microsoft RD, Contributing Editor of TechNet Magazine
Author of DBCC CHECKDB/repair (and other Storage Engine) code of SQL Server 2005

Post #727802

GilaMonster

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:20 PM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:11 PM
Points: 37,741, Visits: 30,020

Paul, could the previous error have been hiding these, or do you think they're new corruptions?

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #727803

Paul Randal

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:29 PM

SSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:00 PM
Points: 1,910, Visits: 1,602

If that was the only error in the original CHECKDB output, then no, they weren't masked - as the catalog checks that produce that error are run after the checks that produced the second set of errors.

Holger - was the 8992 error the *only* error in the first set of CHECKDB results? if so, these are new corruptions.

Having it all in German isn't helping things either (no fault of yours Holger!).

Paul Randal
CEO, SQLskills.com: Check out SQLskills online training!
Blog:www.SQLskills.com/blogs/paul Twitter: @PaulRandal
SQL MVP, Microsoft RD, Contributing Editor of TechNet Magazine
Author of DBCC CHECKDB/repair (and other Storage Engine) code of SQL Server 2005

Post #727807

Holger Degroot

Posted Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:18 PM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:14 PM
Points: 7, Visits: 19

Hi Paul,
yes it was the first and only error.

I will try to use the English MMS console to post English messages (sorry for that)

i will start to rebuild and repair the other errors and then give a feedback.

holger degroot

Post #727859

GilaMonster

Posted Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:45 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:11 PM
Points: 37,741, Visits: 30,020

Holger Degroot (6/2/2009)

Hi Paul,
yes it was the first and only error.

If that's the case, I would suggest two things before you try a fix.
1) Evaluate your IO subsystem - check for errors in event logs or RAID error logs
2) Get that database onto different disks or a different IO system completely.

If you've got new corruptions appearing then there's a serious problem here.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #727913

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

20 posts, Page 2 of 2

««1 2

Permissions