<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://sqlblog.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Search results matching tags 'Partitioning' and 'access violations'</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?o=DateDescending&amp;tag=Partitioning,access+violations&amp;orTags=0</link><description>Search results matching tags 'Partitioning' and 'access violations'</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.1)</generator><item><title>Connect Digest : 2009-11-25</title><link>http://sqlblog.com/blogs/aaron_bertrand/archive/2009/11/25/connect-digest-2009-11-25.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:21:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">21093a07-8b3d-42db-8cbf-3350fcbf5496:19106</guid><dc:creator>AaronBertrand</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;b&gt;Can we improve on CHECKSUM()?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mike C# is not happy with the reliability of CHECKSUM() and asks for a better function that has less (or no) chance of collisions.&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513376" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513376" target="_blank"&gt;#513376 : A Better Collision-Free Hash Function for Comparing Rows of Data&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;b&gt;Service termination and fatal exceptions are bad, m'kay? &lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Victor Lobanov found an easy way to crash SQL Server, by using obscure but legitimate values as terminators in a BULK INSERT statement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513252" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513252" target="_blank"&gt;#513252 : Certain values for ROWTERMINATOR field in BULK INSERT crash SQL Server 2008 SP1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;And Jeremiah Peschka found another bug involving parallel queries, this time leading to a fatal exception (C000005 EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION).&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=514477" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=514477" target="_blank"&gt;#514477 : Parallel plans combined with PIVOT and UNION ALL produce fatal exception&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;font size="3"&gt;&lt;b&gt;SSMS has bugs?&amp;nbsp; Say it ain't so!&lt;br&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jonathan_kehayias/default.aspx" title="http://sqlblog.com/blogs/jonathan_kehayias/default.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;Jonathan Kehayias&lt;/a&gt; pointed out two bugs with the Database Mail Wizard, which seem to be tightly correlated, even though one has been closed as Won't Fix, and one is active but allegedly a duplicate of an existing work item.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=207602" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=207602" target="_blank"&gt;#207602 : Max of 1 Database Mail Wizard open at a time&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=463953" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=463953" target="_blank"&gt;#463953 : SSMS Configure Database Mail does not setup mail correctly in some circumstances&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;And earlier this week, I was futzing around with the partition wizards that finally appeared in the 2008 version of SSMS.&amp;nbsp; While it's great to see them, it is too bad that, like the Policy-Based Management wizards, they have similar restrictions on valid syntax that is accepted for things like date literals.&lt;br&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513997" title="http://connect.microsoft.com/SQL/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=513997" target="_blank"&gt;#513997 : SSMS : Create a Partition Wizard does not accept YYYYMMDD&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>