No Files For You
-
GilaMonster (6/18/2014)
Koen Verbeeck (6/18/2014)
The answer is incorrect.The question clearly states that the databases are on site. Thus, by the process of elimination, the corruption answer is the only one left.
Except corruption would not cause that error. If the system tables tables were corrupted so badly that the name couldn't be resolved, at best you'd get error 823/824 error. If checksum wasn't enabled you'd get some other form of high severity message
To get that message from 'corruption', you'd need someone to hack and explicitly modify the system resource DB and drop the view (or update the table backing sys.objects to remove the reference). That's not corruption, that's malicious intent.
True true, but I arrived there by elimination. (And I don't know enough about corruption to know what errors they cause :-D)
Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP -
GilaMonster (6/18/2014)
Koen Verbeeck (6/18/2014)
The answer is incorrect.The question clearly states that the databases are on site. Thus, by the process of elimination, the corruption answer is the only one left.
Except corruption would not cause that error. If the system tables tables were corrupted so badly that the name couldn't be resolved, at best you'd get error 823/824 error. If checksum wasn't enabled you'd get some other form of high severity message
To get that message from 'corruption', you'd need someone to hack and explicitly modify the system resource DB and drop the view (or update the table backing sys.objects to remove the reference). That's not corruption, that's malicious intent.
But we can't assume that somebody hasn't done that. The wording of the question doesn't rule it out 😉
On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
—Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a PhilosopherHow to post a question to get the most help http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537
-
BWFC (6/18/2014)
GilaMonster (6/18/2014)
Koen Verbeeck (6/18/2014)
The answer is incorrect.The question clearly states that the databases are on site. Thus, by the process of elimination, the corruption answer is the only one left.
Except corruption would not cause that error. If the system tables tables were corrupted so badly that the name couldn't be resolved, at best you'd get error 823/824 error. If checksum wasn't enabled you'd get some other form of high severity message
To get that message from 'corruption', you'd need someone to hack and explicitly modify the system resource DB and drop the view (or update the table backing sys.objects to remove the reference). That's not corruption, that's malicious intent.
But we can't assume that somebody hasn't done that. The wording of the question doesn't rule it out 😉
No, but the number of people capable of doing something like that without leaving traces which result in corruption error messages is small. Plus, if that happened it wouldn't be the case that 'The database has some kind of corruption', the user database is untouched, it's the hidden system resource DB that's been manipulated (not corrupt either)
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverabilityWe walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass -
BWFC (6/18/2014)
I'm pretty sure that a straw poll of users on here would find more people using 2012 and 2000 together than using 2012 and the cloud.
You may well be right, I was just explaining my reasoning. Though it's stated that they are using 2012 for everything on site, so the 2000 use would have to be restricted to satellite locations.
For your straw poll - we're using SQL2008R2 and the cloud. Haven't used SQL2000 for a few years now.
-
This was removed by the editor as SPAM
-
SQL Server Management Studio 2012 connects to SQL 2000 server instances without any issues for me.
-
I got it right, but would agree getting the right answer is largely a matter of a coin toss once you've ruled out the three obviously incorrect ones (corruption, wrong name and missing view). We also have SQL instances from 2000 up to 2012, largely because we have to support customers running all those different versions!
-
I've not used Azure so nice to learn about some of the differences, but the correct answer may as well have been 'you're connected to an MySQL instance' for all the relevance it had to the question.
-
Very good one, Andy. Thank you for the post.
Out of five, I narrowed it down to either Cloud or SQL2000 (as it gives same error message on both version), but I took the hint of dropping the SQL2000 when I saw the SQL 2012 mentioned in the question. 🙂 (at first all 5 seemed right... if that were a check-box, I would have definitely gone for that)
Note: For all new users who never connected to SQL Azure... Microsoft offers a "Free Trial" subscription for 30days- where you can create database(s) for learning purpose and use the SSDT 2012 tool (locally) to connect to the SQL Azure databases and play with all DML/DDL statements to see how it works. The good thing of this subscriptions is even after 30 days it still allows you use the DBs normally, but cloud services will be stopped. (I am using this from 3 months now). Link - http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/free-trial/
ww; Raghu
--
The first and the hardest SQL statement I have wrote- "select * from customers" - and I was happy and felt smart. -
Sean Pearce (6/18/2014)
I found the question good and I had no problem understanding the author's intent.There are only two valid answers, Azure and 2000. Being told the company only uses 2012 on-site ruled out 2000.
Maybe they used SQL 2000 in a virtual machine environment on Azure storage.
That is just as plausible...
Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP -
I made the same logical leap as Koen, most of Andy's questions include hints within the question to help rule out certain possibilities,
- On site = No Azure
- SQL 2012 = No SQL 2000
I knew sys.files didn't exist and that sys.database_files did in every DB, so corruption, which i know little about in terms of actual error messages, as unlikely as it was, remained the most likely answer
-
is it me or ...
answer however, taught me a new thing, never work on SQL Azure 🙂
-
I have to agree with Koen. On site means on site, not Azure - plain and simple.
-
Don't get me wrong - I thought it was a good question, but a poorly-worded and misleading implementation.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 69 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply