Take the 2-minute tour ×
Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I understand that looking at DBCC PAGE is supposed to show me the last known good DBCC CHECKDB but I am not seeing this work correctly.

I have a database that I know is corrupted. If I run DBCC CHECKDB the errors are displayed as expected (see below).

CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table 'Blah'
   (object ID 251147940).
Msg 2508, Level 16, State 3, Line 1

When I run the below to evaluate dbi_dbccLastKnownGood, I get the time that the CHECKDB was just run down to the second.

DBCC PAGE ('Blah', 1, 9, 3) WITH TABLERESULTS;

I've read Paul Randal's information, and from that, it looks like I'm doing/reading this correctly. Has anyone seen this before and if so, any thoughts on working around it?

Here is a complete sample of the error. I am getting 12 of these for different tables.

    Msg 2508, Level 16, State 3, Line 1
The In-row data RSVD page count for object "Mailings", index ID 0, partition ID 16459231395840, alloc unit ID 16459231395840 (type In-row data) is incorrect. Run DBCC UPDATEUSAGE.
CHECKDB found 0 allocation errors and 1 consistency errors in table Mailings' (object ID 251147940).
share|improve this question
    
The first paragraph here. Does seem somewhat contradictory but I agree it sounds like this is not expected behaviour for that field to be updated if errors were reported. –  Martin Smith Jan 18 '13 at 17:46
    
Hi Martin. I saw that but then a paragraph below that says ... "You need to look for the dbi_dbccLastKnownGood field. That was the last time that DBCC CHECKDB ran without finding any corruptions." –  Gizmo Jan 18 '13 at 17:57
    
My comment was agreeing with your interpretation based on However, the last-known good time is ONLY updated if there were NO corruptions found. So sounds like this isn't happening for you and therefore this is not the expected/described behaviour. –  Martin Smith Jan 18 '13 at 17:59
    
Thanks Martin...my misunderstanding. –  Gizmo Jan 18 '13 at 18:07
3  
OK those are quite minor issues easily fixed by running DBCC UPDATEUSAGE so maybe it regards that as a successful run. –  Martin Smith Jan 18 '13 at 21:53
show 6 more comments

migrated from stackoverflow.com Jan 19 '13 at 0:24

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.