dbcc cleantable batch size explanationIs there a reliable way to determine when you should run DBCC CLEANTABLE to reclaim space?why SELECT is still using CPU & DiskIO?DBCC CHECKDB ran out of memoryDifference size DBCC Page and DBCC FileheaderHeavy I/O for Microsoft Transaction LogReclaim space from dropped column when there isn't enough space for index rebuildInteresting DBCC CHECKDB scenarioExtracted data WAY bigger than deficit left from deleted rowsWhat can cause DBCC CheckDB to take longer than usual?Reclaim space from dropped column in SQLServer2008R2

What typically incentivizes a professor to change jobs to a lower ranking university?

Languages that we cannot (dis)prove to be Context-Free

Can a monk's single staff be considered dual wielded, as per the Dual Wielder feat?

Roll the carpet

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?

Client team has low performances and low technical skills: we always fix their work and now they stop collaborate with us. How to solve?

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

How do I deal with an unproductive colleague in a small company?

Theorems that impeded progress

What does "Puller Prush Person" mean?

Rock identification in KY

How to regain access to running applications after accidentally zapping X.org?

Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?

How to format long polynomial?

Today is the Center

dbcc cleantable batch size explanation

Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?

Why can't we play rap on piano?

Can a vampire attack twice with their claws using multiattack?

Operational amplifier as a comparator at high frequency

Get value of a counter

What is the word for reserving something for yourself before others do?

Horror movie about a virus at the prom; beginning and end are stylized as a cartoon

Why is 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there's 300k+ births a month?



dbcc cleantable batch size explanation


Is there a reliable way to determine when you should run DBCC CLEANTABLE to reclaim space?why SELECT is still using CPU & DiskIO?DBCC CHECKDB ran out of memoryDifference size DBCC Page and DBCC FileheaderHeavy I/O for Microsoft Transaction LogReclaim space from dropped column when there isn't enough space for index rebuildInteresting DBCC CHECKDB scenarioExtracted data WAY bigger than deficit left from deleted rowsWhat can cause DBCC CheckDB to take longer than usual?Reclaim space from dropped column in SQLServer2008R2






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5















I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



Actual Question:
Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..










share|improve this question






























    5















    I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
    In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



    I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
    So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



    Actual Question:
    Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
    Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



    On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..










    share|improve this question


























      5












      5








      5








      I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
      In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



      I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
      So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



      Actual Question:
      Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
      Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



      On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..










      share|improve this question
















      I have a very large table with 500 mil rows and a Text column that I will be dropping.
      In my Dev environment, I have dropped the column and began the reclaim process, but im not sure what the batch size on the “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 100000)” statement actually does.



      I have tried setting it to 5, expecting it to check the first 5 rows and end. “DBCC CLEANTABLE (MyDb,'dbo.LargeTbl, 5)” and it took 28 hours.
      So I restored the db, set it to 100,000 and it took 4 hours



      Actual Question:
      Does the batch size tell the dbcc cleantable how many rows to do at a time and continuously keep running 100K at a time till it goes thru all 500mil rows?
      Or once I run the 100,000 do I have to run it again till I do all 500 mil rows?



      On my second test, (running the 100K once) I was able to reclaim 30GB. Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..







      sql-server sql-server-2016 dbcc






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago









      Paul White

      54.1k14287460




      54.1k14287460










      asked 5 hours ago









      TomaszTomasz

      806




      806




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7














          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:



          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)





          share|improve this answer

























          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago












          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            4 hours ago







          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago


















          3














          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.



          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00





          share|improve this answer























          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "182"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234041%2fdbcc-cleantable-batch-size-explanation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          7














          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:



          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)





          share|improve this answer

























          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago












          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            4 hours ago







          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago















          7














          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:



          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)





          share|improve this answer

























          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago












          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            4 hours ago







          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago













          7












          7








          7







          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:



          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)





          share|improve this answer















          In addition to the great answer by armitage you probably do not need to use DBCC CLEANTABLE in your scenario.



          You state




          Then I ran an index reorg on ALL indexes and reclaimed and additional 60GB..




          The best practices in the Microsoft documents says:




          DBCC CLEANTABLE should not be executed as a routine maintenance task. Instead, use DBCC CLEANTABLE after you make significant changes to variable-length columns in a table or indexed view and you need to immediately reclaim the unused space. Alternatively, you can rebuild the indexes on the table or view; however, doing so is a more resource-intensive operation.




          It seems like time and space are your biggest goals. Generally rebuilding an index is quicker (but more resource intensive) than a reorg.



          As you are working on a Development server.



          Just rebuild your indexes and you will get the benefits of the index reorg and the DBCC CLEANTABLE at the same time, and probably much quicker.



          Note Rebuild and Reorganize are not the same thing:



          • Reorganize and Rebuild Indexes (Microsoft)

          • Rebuild or Reorganize: SQL Server Index Maintenance (Brent Ozar)

          • SQLskills SQL101: REBUILD vs. REORGANIZE(Paul Randal)






          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 4 hours ago

























          answered 5 hours ago









          James JenkinsJames Jenkins

          2,04022045




          2,04022045












          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago












          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            4 hours ago







          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago

















          • i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago












          • @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

            – James Jenkins
            4 hours ago







          • 1





            ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago
















          i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

          – Tomasz
          4 hours ago






          i thought the same thing and ran the test in reverse. 1) dropped the column 2) defrag all indexes (only reclaimed 30GB) 3) ran cleantable and got 60gb... looks like i need both, this is a one time thing

          – Tomasz
          4 hours ago














          @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

          – James Jenkins
          4 hours ago






          @Tomasz I edited my answer, not sure what you mean by 'defrag all indexes' but Reorg (what you said in your question) & Rebuild (what I said in this answer) are not the same thing.

          – James Jenkins
          4 hours ago





          1




          1





          ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

          – Tomasz
          4 hours ago





          ah, sorry. i reorganized them each time. i will run one more test where i will drop the column and rebuild the index and share the results. thank you.

          – Tomasz
          4 hours ago













          3














          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.



          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00





          share|improve this answer























          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago















          3














          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.



          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00





          share|improve this answer























          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago













          3












          3








          3







          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.



          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00





          share|improve this answer













          According to the Microsoft documentation the Batch Size tells the DBCC CleanTable the number of rows to process per transaction. This relates to the number of rows that the DBCC CleanTable processes internally as the DBCC CleanTable process runs.



          By taking the example in the documentation and modifying to add a million rows and then running the sample script multiple times with varying values for batch size ( see below) it appears that specifying a small batch size increase the execution time as DBCC CleanTable is only operating on the number of rows specified in the batch size.



          • No Batch size specified

          • A batch size of 5

          • A batch size of 100,00






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          armitagearmitage

          838512




          838512












          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago

















          • So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

            – Tomasz
            4 hours ago
















          So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

          – Tomasz
          4 hours ago





          So just to confirm, the process will go thru the entire 500Mil rows, just "exclusively locking" 100K at a time and also allow for backup logs to occur.

          – Tomasz
          4 hours ago

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f234041%2fdbcc-cleantable-batch-size-explanation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ружовы пелікан Змест Знешні выгляд | Пашырэнне | Асаблівасці біялогіі | Літаратура | НавігацыяДагледжаная версіяправерана1 зменаДагледжаная версіяправерана1 змена/ 22697590 Сістэматыкана ВіківідахВыявына Вікісховішчы174693363011049382

          ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_13_input to have shape (3, 150, 150) but got array with shape (150, 150, 3)2019 Community Moderator ElectionError when checking : expected dense_1_input to have shape (None, 5) but got array with shape (200, 1)Error 'Expected 2D array, got 1D array instead:'ValueError: Error when checking input: expected lstm_41_input to have 3 dimensions, but got array with shape (40000,100)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_1 to have shape (7,) but got array with shape (1,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_2 to have shape (1,) but got array with shape (0,)Keras exception: ValueError: Error when checking input: expected conv2d_1_input to have shape (150, 150, 3) but got array with shape (256, 256, 3)Steps taking too long to completewhen checking input: expected dense_1_input to have shape (13328,) but got array with shape (317,)ValueError: Error when checking target: expected dense_3 to have shape (None, 1) but got array with shape (7715, 40000)Keras exception: Error when checking input: expected dense_input to have shape (2,) but got array with shape (1,)

          Illegal assignment from SObject to ContactFetching String, Id from Map - Illegal Assignment Id to Field / ObjectError: Compile Error: Illegal assignment from String to BooleanError: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectError on Test Class - System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectRemote action problemDML requires SObject or SObject list type error“Illegal assignment from List to List”Test Class Fail: Batch Class: System.QueryException: List has no rows for assignment to SObjectMapping to a user'List has no rows for assignment to SObject' Mystery