http://sqlblog.com/blogs/greg_low/archive/2012/07/02/run-database-checks-but-omit-large-tables-or-filegroups-new-option-in-ola-hallengren-s-scripts.aspxOne of the things I've always wanted in DBCC CHECKDB is the option to omit particular tables from the check. The situation that I often see is that companies with large databases often have only one or two very large tables. They want to run a DBCC CHECKDBenCommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)http://sqlblog.com/blogs/greg_low/archive/2012/07/02/run-database-checks-but-omit-large-tables-or-filegroups-new-option-in-ola-hallengren-s-scripts.aspx#44231Tue, 10 Jul 2012 00:46:14 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:44231Gavin Morris<p>Hi Greg,</p> <p>We have this problem - some of our customer databases have ~50GB of useful structured data and ~400GB of blobs. Can you point me at anything on the considerations for skipping the check on these tables?</p>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/greg_low/archive/2012/07/02/run-database-checks-but-omit-large-tables-or-filegroups-new-option-in-ola-hallengren-s-scripts.aspx#44233Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:19:48 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:44233Greg Low<p>Hi Gavin,</p> <p>That's exactly what Ola's options do. You can specify a list of tables to omit.</p> <p>Regards,</p> <p>Greg</p> http://sqlblog.com/blogs/greg_low/archive/2012/07/02/run-database-checks-but-omit-large-tables-or-filegroups-new-option-in-ola-hallengren-s-scripts.aspx#46449Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:20:30 GMT21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:46449Mark Hions<p>Microsoft considers the workaround of multiple CHECKTABLE operations to be &quot;non-onerous&quot;, which is a new term to add to my dictionary.</p>