michael merrill (12/28/2012)
The idea that the table was actually corrupted (not by a user- but say a disk array error) and it still allowed inserts is the paranoid DBA in me talking! But just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean... ;-)
Depending on how badly and what has been corrupted, the inserts may run fine or they may fail. If they run fine then the inserts will be logged normally (and hence present in log backups), if they fail, you get blatant error messages
What is bothering me is that SQL does not tell you right away that there is DB corruption.
Sure it does. The instant that any query encounters corruption you get an error in the error log (823 or 824 are the more common). However, if you don't read the corrupt page, SQL has no way of intuiting that a page on disk that it has not read has been damaged by the IO subsystem.
CheckDB, because it reads every page in the DB, will find all corrupt pages. Normal queries running against the DB might not use the pages that are damaged and hence will never notice that they're corrupt
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)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