I am investigating a high memory usage issue of tempdb on a production SQL Server 2017 Enterprise (64-bit) deployment. This is similar to an issue discussed here. The server has two production DBs each with a FILESTREAM. As part of my investigation, I ran


to check if tempdb is sized correctly. The output was as follows.

DBCC results for 'db_name'.
Estimated TEMPDB space (in KB) needed for CHECKDB on database db_name = 53.
Msg 7933, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Table error: A FILESTREAM directory ID b1e50dcc-0511-4488-8eeb-ea34966edfab exists for a partition, but the corresponding partition does not exist in the database.
Estimated TEMPDB space (in KB) needed for CHECKDB on database db_name = 16379997.
CHECKDB found 1 allocation errors and 0 consistency errors not associated with any single object.
DBCC execution completed. If DBCC printed error messages, contact your system administrator.

I was surprised by the error considering that the senior DBA has all of Ola Hallengren's scripts running on a schedule. No errors were reported by these scheduled scripts and despite the error, the DBs are still functioning with the FILESTREAM.

I continued my troubleshooting on a test environment with a restore of the full production DB backups. As expected the same error is present. Consequently, I ran


but no errors were found. I wanted to execute


but as per the documentation, it cannot be executed on a FILESTREAM filegroup.


Is the FILESTREAM-partition-does-not-exist-in-database-error a problem? Can it be resolved? It does not seem that any of the other DBCC commands detect a problem.


Did you find any resolution to this? I have the same problem. If I execute:


I get the errors you mentioned.

If I execute:

DBCC CHECKDB('[database name]', NOINDEX)

I get no errors at all.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Hi, welcome to the site! I wonder if you could clarify one thing for me. Did omitting the WITH ESTIMATEONLY actually work for you? I mean, are you suggesting this as a solution in scenarios like yours or OP's? Or are you simply observing that running the command without that subclause produces no errors (but not necessarily solves the problem because it might not work the same as with the subclause)? In other words, would you be happy to regularly have to use the second command instead of the first? Thank you. – Andriy M Jul 26 '19 at 6:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.