We have occasionally hit the error “There is already an object named 'PK__#TempTab__0796211ACE71813B' in the database” when some of our procedures attempt to create temp tables with a system-named PK constraint like so:


Querying tempdb.sys.objects reveals a couple of hundred constraints of the form PK__#TempTab__XYZ. Many were created hours ago and haven’t been modified since. There were very few active sessions when I looked at tempdb.sys.objects, so it is hard to believe there are that many temp tables currently in use. We do have many similarly named temp tables created in a lot of stored procedures.

I think temp table caching is responsible here. It appears that these PK constraints stick around in tempdb until their associated cached plans are removed. Testing has shown that causing temp table caching to be disabled (creating stats, adding named constraints, etc.) causes the PK constraint to get removed from tempdb.sys.objects when the temp table goes out of scope. Triggering recompiles and flushing the proc cache also clear out those PK constraints from tempdb.sys.objects.

I am aware that system-named constraints are not guaranteed to be unique as described in this post Can SQL Server create collisions in system generated constraint names?.

My questions are:

  • Am I wrong to assume that temp table caching increases the chance of a name conflict for system-named constraints on temp tables?
  • Could plan cache bloat be responsible for the large number of PK__#TempTab__XYZ constraints that I am seeing in tempdb.sys.objects, thus increasing the chance of two constraints having the same name? I'm trying to understand why we have seen this rare error this often.
  • If we can't ensure that system-named constraints on temp tables will never encounter naming collisions, what can we do to reduce the chance of these collisions in general?

The easiest solution is to use a unique clustered index which does not have to be unique in the system (unlike a primary key constraint). Otherwise, they mostly function the same - a unique index is still a constraint that prevents duplicates and can also be used as the target of foreign keys.

I forget if this specific inline index syntax was possible in 2016 (I only have 2019 locally), but this works fine on newer versions:

CREATE TABLE #fooA(id int, INDEX PK1 UNIQUE clustered(id));
CREATE TABLE #fooB(id int, INDEX PK1 UNIQUE clustered(id));

If that syntax was not yet valid on 2016, you could create a unique clustered index in a second step, which you'd have to name yourself (but you wouldn't have to find some convoluted way to make that name unique).

Also, instead of over-using generic names like #TempTable, use names more specific to the table contents / procedure functionality (like #Orders, #Customers, etc). In cases where you need an explicit PK, this would at least reduce the chance of collisions if all of your PKs will no longer be system-named PK__#TempTab_....

As an aside, I don't think I've ever seen so many temp tables in a system that there are collisions on these long, tried-to-be-unique names. Are you trying to overwhelm the metadata?

| improve this answer | |
  • The syntax does work in 2016. Looking at sys.dm_os_memory_cache_counters, it appears that temp tables defined this way are also still eligible for caching. – Anton1151 May 21 at 12:16

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.