Hi,
Im trying to create a VERY wide table, with 1,000 columns of type varchar(MAX), nullable.
The CREATE TABLE statement (both in SQL 2005 & 2008), gives the following warning:
Warning: The table "WIDE_TABLE" has been created, but its maximum row size exceeds the allowed maximum of 8060 bytes. INSERT or UPDATE to this table will fail if the resulting row exceeds the size limit.
When I insert data into the table, filling all columns with small, 10-byte string values, I get the following error:
Msg 50000, Level 16, State 1, Procedure sp_pivot, Line 118
Cannot create a row of size 15034 which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8060.
Id like to verify this observation: each row is created with 2000 bytes of offset data (2 byte * 1000 columns), 125 bytes for null bitmap (1000 columns / 8 bits) and some more wasted? row information. This leaves less than 6K for the data itself. But since not all columns can fit within the page, forwarding pointers in the row need to be created, 24 byte per column, which very quickly add up to more than 8K, thus the error. So the 8K limit is met for much less columns than the max 1024 column restriction.
Furthermore, in SQL 2008, SPARSE columns will not solve the problem (maybe save some metadata? space in case the columns are null, but if not, Im with the same problem again, or even worse, since now each value takes more storage space. The max 30,000 columns in 2008 is only for cases where the column values are really sparse¦
Is this the right observation? if so, is there a workaround besides splitting to multiple tables?
I thought I understand the notion in the Title until I ran the query below. This query inserts aĀ 5000 byte value into two columns in the same record and sql (2008) doesn't complain.Ā
This is a question that I have not had an opportunity to test. Was wanting to know if anyone in the SQl world knows the answer. In SQL 2K and 2005 your rolls are limited to 8060 bytes without using varchar(MAX). My question is do you have to specify varchar(max) before your roll can exceed 8060 or does SQL 2005 exceed without specifing varchar(Max). Also does SQL 2005 expand it across multiple pages automatically. Please assist if you can.
I have some code I build 2 weeks ago which Iāve been running daily but itās suddenly stopped working with the following error.
āThe table "tbl_Intraday_Tmp" has been created, but its maximum row size exceeds the allowed maximum of 8060 bytes. INSERT or UPDATE to this table will fail if the resulting row exceeds the size limitā When I google this there seems to be a related to tables with vast numbers of columns.
My table tbl_Intraday_tmp is relatively small. It has 7 columns. 1 of varchar(5), 3 of decimal(9,3) and 2 of decimal(18,0). The bit Iām puzzled with is it was working and stopped.
I donāt recall changing anything but I wouldnāt rule that out. I āve inspected the source files and I donāt believe they have changed either.
Hi All,I have created a table in sql server 2000 where at the time of creatingit, the row size excced 8K. I understand why I get the warning below:The table 'tbl_detail' has been created but its maximum row size(12367) exceeds the maximum number of bytes per row (8060). INSERT orUPDATE of a row in this table will fail if the resulting row lengthexceeds 8060 bytes.However, when I call a stored procedure from my ASP Code, which returnsme this warning, my ASP page displays the warning and does not move tothe next line.What can I do not to get this warning? How do I turn off warningmessages? I tried to wrap my stored procedure call code within SETNOCOUNT ON and SET NOCOUNT OFF but that didn't help.Any help would be really appreciated,Thanks,Boris
we can easily load a file into db tables. However, my main concern here is the number of columns in the file. A text file TEXT_1400.txt has 1400 columns. I am unable to load data to my db table using BCP or BULK INSERT commands, as maximum of 1024 columns are allowed per table in SQL Server 2008.Ā
We can still go ahead and create āWide Tableā (a special table that holds up to 30,000 columns.Ā The maximum size of a wide table row is 8,019 bytes.).Ā But when operating on wide table, BCP/BULK INSERT commands still fail. After few hours of scratching my head over BCP and BULK INSERT, I observed that while insertingĀ BCP/BULK INSERT commands are unable to identify SPARSE columns and skip these columns, which disturbs column mapping and results in data conversion and trancation errors. Ā Is there any proper way to load this kind of files into the db table?Ā
SQL Server 2012.If I create a table with 307 columns, all of type nvarchar(50), it works. If I add another column of type nvarchar(50), it works but I get a warning:
Warning: The table "RowSizeError" has been created, but its maximum row size exceeds the allowed maximum of 8060 bytes. INSERT or UPDATE to this table will fail if the resulting row exceeds the size limit.
Ā 307Ā x 50 = 15350 and 308 x 50 = 15400. why I get the warning below with 308 columns but not with 307?
We are uploading data from Excel into SQL . Two columns can have data which is of 3000 varchar size. When using DTS , it says if my record length is > 8060 , it aborts . Can this be modified . What is the limitation
I have recently converted a table with many columns that are now using sparse columns.However I have now found that a lot of my queries are not working.It seems to be due to the fact that I am using a lot of #Temp tables in my queries along with the SELECT... INTO... method to get data into the temporary table.This worked previously fine, however the sparse columns are not coming across to the #Temp table.Here is an example of what previously working fine:-
(This obviously just grabbed everything in the Client table) Select * INTO #temptable1 from ClientI have tried the following without any success (Knowing I now need to specify the column names) Select ClientId, Val1, Val2, Val3, Val4, Val5, Val6 INTO #temptable1 from ClientVal3, Val4, Val6 and Val6 are sparse columns.
The query runs fine, however when I try and do a select of any of the sparse columns from #temptable1, it just says they do not exist.After reading up. It would seem I can not use the SELECT... INTO... however I have not found any other alternatives that I can convert my code to?I have a lot of quite complex queries that use this method and I am looking for something that I can convert them all over to.
A simple alter statement to populate a column is giving the error below. UPDATE AM_PROFILE_4101_0 SET _92284 = CONVERT(varchar(1000),fv.varcharValue) FROM AM_PROFILE_4101_0 pt INNER JOIN cyfield_value fv ON fv.fieldID = 92284 AND pt.AM_PROFILE_ID = fv.AMid
Cannot create a row of size 8125 which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8060. The table as many varchar(max) columns such as _92284, and many are populated with around 1000 bytes of data. Everything I'm reading tells me SQL 2005 supports large row sizes. But why is this error still coming up.
Other usage info: These numbered columns (i.e. _92284) are dropped, added, and repopulated with data every night.
I have a package with an input column that is varchar(8000).
I want to strip the first byte off of this column and put it in one result column and the remainder of the field I want to go to a second column. If the input column is an empty string, I want to return NULL.
Pulling the first byte off works fine, no issues, however putting the remainder of the input column into an output column is giving me a little trouble.
The expression passes muster but I get the warning that I will be truncating the column at 4000 bytes.
In actuality, I don't care if the result column is truncated after 4000 bytes. I find the second solution to be a bit clunky and I'm wondering if anyone can give me a reason why the first solution won't evaluate but the second will?
I want the reason for the above statement where I user nvarchar(4000) to insert the japanese text it give the same error , why we cannot have maximum size ? if we can have maximum size than 8060 what is the setting
I have some huge tables (think 200+GB for a single table) which are excellent candidates for sparse columns. The tables have many columns which are defined with decimal datatypes (13,2) with a large percentage of them (over 50% in most cases- some as much as 99%) being 0.00. Since this is very expensive in terms of storage my idea is to set all the 0.00 values equal to NULL then set them as sparse. Across 100 or so identical databases, I have 5 such tables, with 20-40 columns in each table.
1.) three steps for each column in each table in each db.
Step 1: update table to allow for nulls
Step 2: update tabe set column=null where column =0.00
Step 3 update table set sparse columns
2.)
Step 1: Create entirely new table with sparse column definitions
Step 2: copy entire table, transforming 0.00 to null for affected columns via SSIS
Step 3: drop original table, rename new table to original name
Sql Server has many data types. For Example: smallint Integer data from -2^15 (-32,768) through 2^15 - 1 (32,767). Storage size is 2 bytes. I want to know that If it contains like 0 or 100 or 1000 or -200 or -2000 or more or less. What will its actual size? 2 bytes or change with the value. Please also mention the reference with your answer. if available.
Dim oParameter As New System.Data.SqlServerCe.SqlCeParameter("@pMyParameter", SqlDbType.Binary, 3000)
If you set a watch on this object, the size is set back to 510. I have tried resetting the size back to 3000 after construction using oParameter.Size, but it doesn't change from 510. If the command is executed using ExecNonQuery, this causes the bytes to get cut off at 510 bytes and returns the error: Byte array truncation to a length of 510.
Can I insert data into SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition, into a field of data type binary(3000) using .NET CF 2.0 via SqlServerCe objects?
We have an app that threads together emails coming out of Exchange, using their messageid. To ensure threading works correctly, we need to ensure uniqueness of messageid, which we do with a unique index (we also need to be able to lookup by messageid when a message comes in).
We are currently porting the app from Oracle and PostgreSQL to SQL Server and are having problems with the 900 byte max length of an index. The problem is that the maximum size of a messageid (according to the Exchange docs) is 1877 bytes.
Hi, All,I came cross a problem like this.Cannot create a row of size which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8060 Is there any method to solve this ?
Does anyone know if a sprocs parameter has a size limit? For example if you're passing in a XML document to a sproc - could that call fail based upon the size of the XML document? Consider memory a non-issue.
I create an sql string as so, add parameters to it and execute it: string cmdstr = "INSERT INTO locations(id1, id2, companyname, address, city, province, postalcode, phonenumber, faxnumber, contact, contactemail) VALUES (@id1,@id2,@companyname,@address,@city,@province,@postalcode,@phonenumber,@faxnumber,@contact,@contactemail)"; SqlCommand sqlCmd = GetCommandSQL(cmdstr); sqlCmd.CommandTimeout = TimeOut; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@id1", SqlDbType.Int).Value = itID; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@id2", SqlDbType.Int).Value = Convert.ToInt32(ddlDPCLocation.SelectedValue); sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@companyname", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbCompanyName")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@address", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbAddress")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@city", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbCity")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@province", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbProvince")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@postalcode", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbPostalCode")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@phonenumber", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbPhoneNumber")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@faxnumber", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbFaxNumber")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@contact", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbContact")).Text; sqlCmd.Parameters.Add("@contactemail", SqlDbType.VarChar).Value = ((TextBox)dvShippingInformation.FindControl("tbContactEmail")).Text; sqlCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); for testing purposes ive added the max text in each textbox area, so each textbox has 50 characters or so and i get an error message as follows, when executing the query: "System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: String or binary data would be truncated. The statement has been terminated. at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj) at System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Run(RunBehavior runBehavior, SqlCommand cmdHandler, SqlDataReader dataStream, BulkCopySimpleResultSet bulkCopyHandler, TdsParserStateObject stateObj) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.FinishExecuteReader(SqlDataReader ds, RunBehavior runBehavior, String resetOptionsString) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.RunExecuteReaderTds(CommandBehavior cmdBehavior, RunBehavior runBehavior, Boolean returnStream, Boolean async) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.RunExecuteReader(CommandBehavior cmdBehavior, RunBehavior runBehavior, Boolean returnStream, String method, DbAsyncResult result) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.InternalExecuteNonQuery(DbAsyncResult result, String methodName, Boolean sendToPipe) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery() at _default.InsertGKShippingLocation() in c:\Inetpub\wwwroot\cleanapp\default.aspx.cs:line 125 at _default.InsertOrder() in c:\Inetpub\wwwroot\cleanapp\default.aspx.cs:line 93 at _default.InsertandSend() in c:\Inetpub\wwwroot\cleanapp\default.aspx.cs:line 178" Anybody have any ideas why this is happening
We are attempting to improve our merge replication process between our SQL Server 2005 server and SqlCe Mobile 3 client by switching to Data Partitions. We are using IIS as a proxy to SQL Server 2005 running on a different box using a DOMAIN account.
We've setup row filters to use HOST_NAME() and have set the option "Automatically define a partition and generate a snapshot if needed when a new Subscriber tries to synchronize" to true in the Data Partitions options under the publication's properties in SQL server management studio.
If I use a .HostName value of "1234", everything works fine. A subdirectory is created under a our publication's folder in the shared replication directory that relates to the host_name. Data is copied to the device and can be observed through query analyzer that the data is in fact filtered properly.
However, when using a .HostName based on the GetDeviceUniqueID (which results in '3D321F7212B2AD2CC824954662B9023441BB2D20'), replication works sometimes and sometimes fails with "The merge process was unable to deliver the snapshot to the Subscriber. If using Web synchronization, the merge process may have ben unable to create or write to the message file. [etc]". The final HRESULT is 80045017.
While this error indicates a permission problem, there were no permission problems when creating the "1234" partition. In researching the problem, I ran across KB905395 which states: Limitations on the HostName property and the Subscriber-requested snapshotIf you try to initialize a SQL Server Mobile Edition subscription by using a filtered HostName property, initialization fails. This problem occurs when the value that is supplied for the HostName property contains more than 12 characters. To work around this problem, disable Subscriber-requested snapshot delivery at the Publisher. You can also use a value for the HostName property that contains fewer than 12 characters.
====
This seems to be consistent with what we've observed (which actually led to the "1234" test). Does anyone know if a fix for this exists? Has anyone else run across this issue? I saw a previous post from March that did, but never got resolved. However, the KB article above was posted in March - hmmm...
This is an existing application and filtering based on the device's id is ingrained in the application. Changing it now would be large undertaking.
Regards, Santino Lamberti Senior Software Engineer Launch Technologies, Inc.
One of our database is approaching the gigabyte size. I know that microsoft claims to support terabyte databases with sql server 7.0. I was wondering if anyone could tell me about the max size of database they have used on an OLTP site without running into problems. ofcourse with SQL Server.
