I asked the DBA but unfortunately they couldn't explain it.
I think there must be some dodgy data since; I can extract a test user.
And extracting a user with an empty position works fine.
Can you test in the application that the View with dbo.S_STORE_COND, that you can access the View and are able to add a record?
Can you query directly on the DB and see if you can reproduce the error?
select top 1 * from dbo.S_STORE_COND with (index S_STORE_COND_U1)
This Query gives an error:
SELECT TOP 1 * from S_STORE_COND with (INDEX S_STORE_COND_U1)
Server: Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 1
Incorrect syntax near 'S_STORE_COND_U1'.
The view loads up OK, but its read only so I can't test adding data to it...
Try: SELECT TOP 1 * from S_STORE_COND with (INDEX = S_STORE_COND_U1)
Running that SQL gives:
Server: Msg 315, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Index "S_STORE_COND_U1" on table "S_STORE_COND" (specified in the FROM clause) is disabled or resides in a filegroup which is not online.
If this was a general problem with this 'Index', then surely it would affect:
- Online usage.
- All Remote Clients on All Remote Servers.
Wheras the case seems to be it:
- Doesn't affect online usage at all.
- Only affects some Remote Clients on some Remote Servers..
Also, does anyone know if its a valid thing to do to get the DBA's to simply rebuild this Index? I mean, is it going to affect Siebel in some way?
& how could this really have happened, I mean, everything was working before..?
We can also turn this the other way around.
Because you see the same error when you execute the SQL directly, it's not (specifically) related to Siebel.
Your DBA has to come up with an explanation or solution for the error message.
Not all users will see the same data, so the fact that not all users see this error message still isn't proof of a bug in Siebel.
Working with the DBA we had the Index re-instated in QA, were we had the same issue.
So far it seems to have 'fixed' the problem; Database Extracts can run through again even for 'broken' remote clients.
No one seems to be able to explain what happened to our Index, which is strange to me, as it seems unlikely that someone manually disabled it.
But I'll just have to put it down as 'one of those things' I suppose.