CODEWITHSUNDEEP
sql-serverdatabasesql-server-7
Cory House
Cory House

Reputation: 15065

SQL Server Error: Cannot sort a row of size x, which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8094. But I'm not sorting

I understand that the "Cannot sort a row of size 9754, which is greater than the allowable maximum of 8094." from SQL server is caused by a row that has over 9k characters in it, which is greater than the page size limit in SQL Server 7. But I'm not calling an order by on the data below, so why does the error say it cannot sort? 

SELECT <a number of columns...>
FROM Category10Master c10
JOIN Category20Master c20 ON c10.Cat10ID = c20.ParentCatID 
JOIN Category25Master c25 ON c20.Cat20ID = c25.ParentCatID 
JOIN Category30Master c30 ON c25.Cat25ID = c30 .ParentCatID 
JOIN Item i ON c30.Cat30ID = i.ParentCatID

EDIT: And yes, I know I can call fewer columns to solve this - the actual query calls the columns needed explicitly and still exceeds the row size limit. This is actually in a view that's called site-wide so changing the view to pull back fewer columns isn't an attractive option - dozens of pages would need to be modified to get their data from somewhere other than the view. I'm unlucky enough to have interhited an ugly design and am hoping someone has a more attractive solution than pulling less data.

Upvotes: 1

Views: 2703

Answers (5)

HLGEM
HLGEM

Reputation: 96640

I know you don't want to hear this but if your view is running up against the actual limits of SQL server, then you need to redesign. This is a problem that won't go away with a some sort of hack. Every time someone wants to do queries that hit the rows that are too big, you are going to encounter the same problem. Now it is possible that you have bad data in the rows that are too big. But I'm betting on just plain bad design. Yes it's a lot of work to refactor a bad database design, but this is only going to get worse through time not better.

Do you get the same error if you directly query the tables instead of using a view? I suspect that you are trying to pivot information from similar tables (based on the table names). Can you do a union all instead and have the application do the pivoting? That way the query at least would have fewer columns.

I know I'm, preaching to the choir here, but it really is time to get your organization to upgrade to a newer version of SQl server. Even now you can't directly upgrade to 2008, so you are in real danger of losing any upgrade path at all if you can't get SQL server 2005. If this is business critical data, you cannot afford to wait on upgrading any longer.

Upvotes: 2

KM.
KM.

Reputation: 103697

You may be able to split up your query with a CTE, derived tables, and or #temp table to get around your problems, but I don't know enough about your tables, returned columns, or indexes to make any specific recommendations.

Without more info it is impossible to solve this for you. What are the table definitions? are you JOINing columns of type INTs or varchar(1000)? do you have covering indexes? are you selecting columns from each table, or only some?

possibly use covering indexes to get all the primary keys in a CTE, derived tables, and or #temp table, and then join back to the regular tables to get the columns you are interested in.

Upvotes: 0

Anton Gogolev
Anton Gogolev

Reputation: 115867

My wild guess will be that SQL Server needs to sort data somewhere in temporary tables to make joins more performant. It obviously cannot do that since you're selecting each and every column from what, 4 tables.

Consider replacing select * with something more appropriate.

Upvotes: 0

Andrew
Andrew

Reputation: 27314

Check the estimated query plan for the sort, to perform one of the joins it may be choosing a merge join for example, and to achieve this it requires the data to be sorted first prior to the merge - at that point you've sorted.

Upvotes: 5

Maximilian Mayerl
Maximilian Mayerl

Reputation: 11367

Well, the point is: Your row is too big. You are not making an explicit sort, but maybe the query engine decided the sort something for performance purposes?

Either way, you have to do something about your row size, for example not selecting "*", but only the data you really need.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions