The July edition of TechNet Magazine is available on the web now and has the latest installment of my regular SQL Q&A column (and I forgot to blog about it a couple of weeks back). This month's topics are: Why shrink runs slower on some databases than others Is it true that autogrow should always [...]
Paul S. Randal
In Recovery...
TechNet Magazine: July 2010 SQL Q&A column
Posted on: August 9, 2010 4:51 pm
Why LOB data makes shrink run slooooowly (T-SQL Tuesday #006)
Posted on: May 11, 2010 2:25 pm
This blog post is part of the monthly T-SQL Tuesday series that fellow-MVP Adam Machanic (twitter|blog) organizes. This month’s T-SQL Tuesday is being run by Michael Coles (twitter|blog) and is on the subject of reporting – see this blog post for details. The theme of this month’s T-SQL Tuesday is LOB data so I’m going to stretch [...]
2005 corruption bug with XML index rebuild fixed in latest CU
Posted on: December 2, 2009 5:04 pm
2005 SP3 CU6 contains a fix for a corruption bug that can happen after rebuilding an XML index that contains XML elements greater than 8000 bytes. The bug was fixed in 2008 but hadn't made it back to 2005 until the last CU was released. I had email from someone back in August experiencing corruption [...]
Performance bug: NOLOCK scans involving off-row LOB data
Posted on: April 30, 2009 5:34 pm
Here's an interesting bug that was just recently fixed, and someone actually hit it today, so it's time to blog it. Bottom line is that if you're doing NOLOCK scans of tables involving LOB data, the perfmance might suck. 2005 SP3 CU3 has the bug fix, but unfortunately the KB article was written by someone [...]
Importance of choosing the right LOB storage technique
Posted on: April 3, 2009 8:46 am
Last week's survey was on how you should store large-value character data in SQL 2005+ (see here for the survey). Here are the result as of 4/3/2009 – and I think my favorite answer is starting to catch-on: My favorite answer is, of course, it depends! For all those who didn't answer 'it depends', your [...]
Weekly survey: large-value character storage
Posted on: March 27, 2009 9:58 am
(And it's official – this is blog post 39 this month, making this my most prolific month yet for blogging. An arguably dubious achievement…) In this week's survey, I'm interested in your views on the best way to store large-value character data. I'll report on the results next week (around 4/3/09). Thanks!
Couple of LOB corruption bugs fixed in the latest CUs for 2005
Posted on: March 10, 2009 4:49 pm
Both 2005 SP3 CU2 and 2005 SP2 CU12 contain fixes for two bugs that cause corruption in LOB data. The first bug may happen when a column type is converted to varbinary(max), change the large-value-types-out-of-row option to true, insert a row, and then try to update it – described in KB 961648. The second bug [...]
