A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata E

Hello, I am trying to restore a backup of a database that was taken in SQL
Server 2000 onto SQL Server 2005. It appears the action completes, but I ge
t
a list of errors. I have ran a checktable on the tables in question on both
our origional 2000 database and 2005, as well as a checkdb on the database i
n
question on our SQL Server 2005 and get no errors. Any ideas?
Database 'MyDatabase' running the upgrade step from version 539 to version
551.
A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
indexWarning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadat
a
of index "_WA_Sys_claim_scrubber_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 34) on object ID
935062467 in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC
CHECKTABLE to verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_abn_notifier_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 35) on object ID 935062467
in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_cptguidelines_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 36) on object ID 93506246
7
in database "Mydatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_federal_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 37) on object ID 935062467 in
database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_medicarea_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 38) on object ID 935062467 in
database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.Judging by the names of these, they appear to be auto-created statistics (an
d not indexes). I'd drop
those and then re-try the upgrade. See the DROP STATISTICS command.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Aaron" <Aaron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5DF5A523-75C0-45E1-BE54-6901814D0110@.microsoft.com...
> Hello, I am trying to restore a backup of a database that was taken in SQ
L
> Server 2000 onto SQL Server 2005. It appears the action completes, but I
get
> a list of errors. I have ran a checktable on the tables in question on bo
th
> our origional 2000 database and 2005, as well as a checkdb on the database
in
> question on our SQL Server 2005 and get no errors. Any ideas?
> Database 'MyDatabase' running the upgrade step from version 539 to version
> 551.
> A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
> indexWarning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metad
ata
> of index "_WA_Sys_claim_scrubber_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 34) on object ID
> 935062467 in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC
> CHECKTABLE to verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata o
f
> index "_WA_Sys_abn_notifier_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 35) on object ID 9350624
67
> in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata o
f
> index "_WA_Sys_cptguidelines_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 36) on object ID 935062
467
> in database "Mydatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata o
f
> index "_WA_Sys_federal_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 37) on object ID 935062467 in
> database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata o
f
> index "_WA_Sys_medicarea_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 38) on object ID 935062467
in
> database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
>

A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata E

Hello, I am trying to restore a backup of a database that was taken in SQL
Server 2000 onto SQL Server 2005. It appears the action completes, but I get
a list of errors. I have ran a checktable on the tables in question on both
our origional 2000 database and 2005, as well as a checkdb on the database in
question on our SQL Server 2005 and get no errors. Any ideas?
Database 'MyDatabase' running the upgrade step from version 539 to version
551.
A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
indexWarning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata
of index "_WA_Sys_claim_scrubber_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 34) on object ID
935062467 in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC
CHECKTABLE to verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_abn_notifier_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 35) on object ID 935062467
in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_cptguidelines_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 36) on object ID 935062467
in database "Mydatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_federal_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 37) on object ID 935062467 in
database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.
Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
index "_WA_Sys_medicarea_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 38) on object ID 935062467 in
database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
verify consistency.Judging by the names of these, they appear to be auto-created statistics (and not indexes). I'd drop
those and then re-try the upgrade. See the DROP STATISTICS command.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Aaron" <Aaron@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5DF5A523-75C0-45E1-BE54-6901814D0110@.microsoft.com...
> Hello, I am trying to restore a backup of a database that was taken in SQL
> Server 2000 onto SQL Server 2005. It appears the action completes, but I get
> a list of errors. I have ran a checktable on the tables in question on both
> our origional 2000 database and 2005, as well as a checkdb on the database in
> question on our SQL Server 2005 and get no errors. Any ideas?
> Database 'MyDatabase' running the upgrade step from version 539 to version
> 551.
> A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
> indexWarning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata
> of index "_WA_Sys_claim_scrubber_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 34) on object ID
> 935062467 in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC
> CHECKTABLE to verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
> index "_WA_Sys_abn_notifier_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 35) on object ID 935062467
> in database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
> index "_WA_Sys_cptguidelines_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 36) on object ID 935062467
> in database "Mydatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
> index "_WA_Sys_federal_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 37) on object ID 935062467 in
> database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
> Warning: A column nullability inconsistency was detected in the metadata of
> index "_WA_Sys_medicarea_37BBEBC3" (index_id = 38) on object ID 935062467 in
> database "MyDatabase". The index may be corrupt. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE to
> verify consistency.
>sql

4 processors detected - but we only have two?

Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an event
log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two processors.
Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be concerned
about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
Server 2000 with all patches.
Thanks in advance.
Mark
It's behaviour or hyperthreading processors (each one seems like two).
J. Lejsek
"Mark" <Mark@.nowhere.com> pe v diskusnm pspvku
news:efaTLg8$EHA.4092@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an
> event
> log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two
> processors.
> Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be
> concerned
> about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
> Server 2000 with all patches.
> Thanks in advance.
> Mark
>
|||Hyper-Threading
http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/
"Mark" wrote:

> Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an event
> log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two processors.
> Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be concerned
> about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
> Server 2000 with all patches.
> Thanks in advance.
> Mark
>
>

4 processors detected - but we only have two?

Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an event
log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two processors.
Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be concerned
about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
Server 2000 with all patches.
Thanks in advance.
MarkIt's behaviour or hyperthreading processors (each one seems like two).
J. Lejsek
"Mark" <Mark@.nowhere.com> pe v diskusnm pspvku
news:efaTLg8$EHA.4092@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an
> event
> log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two
> processors.
> Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be
> concerned
> about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
> Server 2000 with all patches.
> Thanks in advance.
> Mark
>|||Hyper-Threading
http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/
"Mark" wrote:

> Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an eve
nt
> log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two processors
.
> Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be concern
ed
> about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
> Server 2000 with all patches.
> Thanks in advance.
> Mark
>
>

4 processors detected - but we only have two?

Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an event
log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two processors.
Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be concerned
about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
Server 2000 with all patches.
Thanks in advance.
MarkIt's behaviour or hyperthreading processors (each one seems like two).
J. Lejsek
"Mark" <Mark@.nowhere.com> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku
news:efaTLg8$EHA.4092@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an
> event
> log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two
> processors.
> Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be
> concerned
> about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
> Server 2000 with all patches.
> Thanks in advance.
> Mark
>|||Hyper-Threading
http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/
"Mark" wrote:
> Each time our server is rebooted, and SQL Server restarts, it posts an event
> log message like the one below. The thing is, we only have two processors.
> Does this indicate a misconfiguration, a problem, or nothing to be concerned
> about? This is a brand new Dell loaded with Windows 2003 Server and SQL
> Server 2000 with all patches.
> Thanks in advance.
> Mark
>
>