Database attach failed

Here's the scoop, I got a generic-purpose database (in the form of
*.mdb and *.ldf) from a 'reputable' source on the net. But when I
attempted to attach it to my sql server 2000 with SP3 with EM, it
failed complaining "Could not find row in sysindexes for database ID
10, object ID 1, index ID 1. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE on sysindexes."
Then, I attempted to command line attach (thought it may have some
option...), same outcome. Then, ran a search on this NG, and found
the following thread, the question is, MS most likely would not
support something like this, so now what? Also thought about
manually adding a row to sysindexes table to 'fool the attach process'
but after looking at some sample data in this table, I don't think
it's a good idea to try, what can I do? Thanks.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.ms-sqlserver/b rowse_thread/thread/ce19644f499c2a0f/93bee910fa30aa9a?lnk=gs t&q=Could+not+find+row+in+sysindexes+for+database+ID#93bee91 0fa30aa9a

Re: Database attach failed

time management (tatata9999@gmail.com) writes:
> Here's the scoop, I got a generic-purpose database (in the form of
> *.mdb and *.ldf) from a 'reputable' source on the net. But when I
> attempted to attach it to my sql server 2000 with SP3 with EM, it
> failed complaining "Could not find row in sysindexes for database ID
> 10, object ID 1, index ID 1. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE on sysindexes."

That message appears familiar. I seem to recall that is what happens
if you try to attach an SQL 2005 database on SQL 2000. As far as
SQL 2000 that is a database that is alien, and for which it cannot
really have any graceful handling off.

> Then, I attempted to command line attach (thought it may have some
> option...), same outcome. Then, ran a search on this NG, and found
> the following thread,

Which is from 1998, and applies to really old versions of SQL Server.




--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downlo ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books .mspx

Re: Database attach failed

On Nov 19, 5:32 pm, Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> time management (tatata9...@gmail.com) writes:
> > Here's the scoop, I got a generic-purpose database (in the form of
> > *.mdb and *.ldf) from a 'reputable' source on the net. But when I
> > attempted to attach it to my sql server 2000 with SP3 with EM, it
> > failed complaining "Could not find row in sysindexes for database ID
> > 10, object ID 1, index ID 1. Run DBCC CHECKTABLE on sysindexes."
>
> That message appears familiar. I seem to recall that is what happens
> if you try to attach an SQL 2005 database on SQL 2000. As far as
> SQL 2000 that is a database that is alien, and for which it cannot
> really have any graceful handling off.
>
> > Then, I attempted to command line attach (thought it may have some
> > option...), same outcome. Then, ran a search on this NG, and found
> > the following thread,
>
> Which is from 1998, and applies to really old versions of SQL Server.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/down loads/books...
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/boo ks.mspx

Thanks for the follow-up, Erland. I tried to attach it with sql
server 2005 as well, the restored db seemed weired with "D:\aName
\blakdsm\blad..", empty, not workable. Now, suppose I can get a
clean/good copy for server 2005, what are the chances of success of
using DUMB database then BACKUP or LOAD back into server 2000? These
two boxes are not connected and they can't.

Don

Re: Database attach failed

time management (tatata9999@gmail.com) writes:
> Thanks for the follow-up, Erland. I tried to attach it with sql
> server 2005 as well, the restored db seemed weired with "D:\aName
> \blakdsm\blad..", empty, not workable. Now, suppose I can get a
> clean/good copy for server 2005, what are the chances of success of
> using DUMB database then BACKUP or LOAD back into server 2000? These
> two boxes are not connected and they can't.

If you need to move a database from SQL 2005 to SQL 2000 you need to
create from scripts and copy data to file with bulk copy. If the database
uses features that do not exist in SQL 2000, you will have to make some
compromises.

You cannot restore a backup from SQL 2005 on SQL 2000. For quite obvious
reasons: there are features in SQl 2005 for which SQL 2000 is not prepared.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downlo ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books .mspx

Re: Database attach failed

On Nov 20, 5:31 pm, Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> time management (tatata9...@gmail.com) writes:
> > Thanks for the follow-up, Erland. I tried to attach it with sql
> > server 2005 as well, the restored db seemed weired with "D:\aName
> > \blakdsm\blad..", empty, not workable. Now, suppose I can get a
> > clean/good copy for server 2005, what are the chances of success of
> > using DUMB database then BACKUP or LOAD back into server 2000? These
> > two boxes are not connected and they can't.
>
> If you need to move a database from SQL 2005 to SQL 2000 you need to
> create from scripts and copy data to file with bulk copy. If the database
> uses features that do not exist in SQL 2000, you will have to make some
> compromises.
>
> You cannot restore a backup from SQL 2005 on SQL 2000. For quite obvious
> reasons: there are features in SQl 2005 for which SQL 2000 is not prepared.
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esq...@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 athttp://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/down loads/books...
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 athttp://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/boo ks.mspx

Thanks, Erland, bcp is clumsy or because I'm not an expert of it :)
Viable options for the task all seem to consume quite a bit of time
but hey got to do the job. Once again I appreciate it.

Don